FAT BASTARD (aka Lou Diamond)
Br...@nospam.ca
> Tom Gallagher Lies, Cheats and Steals!!!!
So where's YOUR DOCUMENTED & verifiable evidence, LIAR BOY?
If indeed you have it...
Lou Diamond
What the fuck NG are you reading? Gags stated that my database was FULL
of errors. I provided that database here as *EVIDENCE" that it was
not. Gag never proved his claim, retracted or apologized. Thus making
him a liar a cheat and a thief. Just like *YOU*.
Now, can you please show us where it says Instant fr Odds on the site?
If you FAIL to do so, this will PROVE once again, you are the LIAR...
Br...@nospam.ca
> > So where's YOUR DOCUMENTED & verifiable evidence, LIAR BOY?
> > If indeed you have it...
>
> What the fuck NG are you reading? Gags stated that my database was FULL
> of errors. I provided that database here as *EVIDENCE" that it was
> not.
=====
No you didn't. You posted SOME items. That's it.
For all we know, Tom is right. There may have been errors
and you simply didn't show those. You PROVED nothing.
Furthermore, you may have found errors and corrected them,
which of course does not mean Tom was wrong at the time,
nor can you post anything to PROVE his allegation false.
Just like a guy could be listed on his site as 57-49, then
lose 4 in a row....his update should read: 57-53....but alas
he posts on his site 59-51.....a guy complains that his website
is in ERROR....the offender quickly CORRECTS THE MISTAKES
then flames the complainant, calling him a LIAR, CHEAT and THIEF.
(that's an ILLUSTRATION)
But it makes a valid point.
It's impossible to prove NOW if Tom was right when he said so.
But just like the illustration, it doesn't mean he wasn't...
> Gag never proved his claim, retracted or apologized. Thus making
> him a liar a cheat and a thief. Just like *YOU*.
======
Why should he if he was right *AT THE TIME* ??
And even *IF* he may have been mistaken, that is MAY HAVE,
this does not make him a thief, nor cheat.
However, for *YOU* to assert that, is a blatant LIE
making *YOU* a proven and documented LIAR.
>
> Now, can you please show us where it says Instant fr Odds on the site?
> If you FAIL to do so, this will PROVE once again, you are the LIAR...
=====
Hellifyknow if it says instantfrodds *ON YOUR SITE* or not.
Never actually stated that it does.
Lou Diamond
> Lou Diamond wrote:
>
> > > So where's YOUR DOCUMENTED & verifiable evidence, LIAR BOY?
> > > If indeed you have it...
> >
> > What the fuck NG are you reading? Gags stated that my database was FULL
> > of errors. I provided that database here as *EVIDENCE" that it was
> > not.
> =====
> No you didn't. You posted SOME items. That's it.
> For all we know, Tom is right. There may have been errors
> and you simply didn't show those. You PROVED nothing.
It's there, in the same spot, PROVEN everyday.
>
>
> Furthermore, you may have found errors and corrected them,
> which of course does not mean Tom was wrong at the time,
> nor can you post anything to PROVE his allegation false.
When the NY Times makes a negative claim that will harm a business, the burden
of proof is on them.
Same holds true for Stu Feiner, as you'll see very shortly.
Same holds truth for Tom Gallagher.
Same holds true for all your aliases Brian/Josh/Max
Same holds true for ANY business/person reporting claims that are harmful to
the person being attacked.
Is their a 1st grader in the house that can help this mentally challenged
Brian/Max/Josh Anthony?
>
>
> Just like a guy could be listed on his site as 57-49, then
> lose 4 in a row....his update should read: 57-53....but alas
> he posts on his site 59-51.....a guy complains that his website
> is in ERROR....the offender quickly CORRECTS THE MISTAKES
> then flames the complainant, calling him a LIAR, CHEAT and THIEF.
> (that's an ILLUSTRATION)
> But it makes a valid point.
> It's impossible to prove NOW if Tom was right when he said so.
So now you've branded him a LIAR for life. thanks for the help.
>
> But just like the illustration, it doesn't mean he wasn't...
getting dizzy?
> > Gag never proved his claim, retracted or apologized. Thus making
> > him a liar a cheat and a thief. Just like *YOU*.
> ======
> Why should he if he was right *AT THE TIME* ??
>
He's made a claim with intent to harm another business in efforts to help
his. He provided ABSOLUTELY no proof to back his claim.
Let's illustrate.
If someone makes a claim that he is hitting 53% over the last 100 games,
*should they provide PROOF for that claim?
-Or-
would you say "why should he if he was right *AT THE TIME*?"
-or-
would you say, let's give a chance to prove it.
You're an asshole and a hypocrite. My only hope is that you come back and say
it's apples and oranges.
>
> And even *IF* he may have been mistaken, that is MAY HAVE,
> this does not make him a thief, nor cheat.
If he was honestly mistaken, he would have said "I looked at the data and I
was mistaken." By not saying this or providing any proof, proves that his
intent was to maliciously harm a competitors business with a blatant LIE in
attempt to better himself.
Providing NO PROOF to a slanderous claim is a blatant lie. He's is attempting
to steal my client base by making that claim with no proof, making him a
thief. Malicious slander IS considered cheating.
>
> However, for *YOU* to assert that, is a blatant LIE
> making *YOU* a proven and documented LIAR.
>
Need that 1st grader for help with this one too.
>
> >
> > Now, can you please show us where it says Instant fr Odds on the site?
> > If you FAIL to do so, this will PROVE once again, you are the LIAR...
> =====
> Hellifyknow if it says instantfrodds *ON YOUR SITE* or not.
> Never actually stated that it does.
Well let's rephrase your lie. I make ALL final decisions for
InstantOdds.com. I never authorized anyone or anybody to put fr in the middle
of our name on ANY screen. For you to say, Instantodds keeps leaving the fr
out of it's name, is a complete LIE. Therefore *YOU* should never be
trusted. But most normal people *KNOW* that from your other hypocrisies.
Gallagher Sports
news:38C82495...@instantodds.com...
> He's is attempting to steal my client base by making that claim with no
proof, making him a
> thief.
And what client base would that be? I only want real clients not the
fictitious type!
--
Tom Gallagher
Gallagher Sports
http://tomgallagher.com
Lou Diamond
> "Lou Diamond" <them...@instantodds.com> wrote in message
> news:38C82495...@instantodds.com...
>
> > He's is attempting to steal my client base by making that claim with no
> proof, making him a
> > thief.
>
> And what client base would that be?
The kind you pick up from positive exposure on national tv. The kind that
you lie, cheat and steal to get, but still can't get.
Gallagher Sports
You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands today. And to think, a
full day of conference tourney games and all you seem to be able to do is
post in RGS. If you have that much free time, why don't you go verify that
precious database of yours.
Br...@nospam.ca
>When the NY Times makes a negative claim that will harm a business,
>the burden of proof is on them.
======
Correct!
>Same holds true for all your aliases Brian/Josh/Max
======
FALSE!!!
Josh and Max are not related to me in any way, except they,
along with 95%+ of this newsgroup, obviously dislike YOUR ACT.
Both participated in the recent FOOTBALL CHALLENGE as well as
myself, HCapper, Gallagher, Steve, Bushay, Iceball
Toutman, and about 13 -15 others.
You are wrong.
Whenf you continue to FALSELY ALLEGE they are aliases of mine
then, following *YOUR VERY OWN WORDS* above:
"the burden of PROOF" will fall to *YOU*
And if you persist without PROOF,
you will be indicting yourself a LIAR!
(by YOUR own analogy!)
FTR, I do NOT post under any aliases on rgs!
All statements I make I post under my real name, Brian,
and have done so for the 3 full years I've been here, son.
It is *YOU* who is known to post under
several different aliases, COWARD BOY!
Thus, you are a fraud too, as well as a proven liar.
>Same holds true for ANY business/person reporting claims
>that are harmful to the person being attacked.
=======
Only if there *IS* verifiable harm
as decided by a jury of peers....
Calling the "SKINHEADS" a bunch of COWARDLY, ASSHOLES,
would *NOT* require PROOF ...unless they can
establish that those statements have (or would have)
caused their association actual harm in some meaningful way...
This will always be a "judgement call" by a jury of our peers
and the "SKINHEADS" would lose...
There's an analogy here one should understand,
but only if one is not an illiterate MORON...
>Is there a 1st grader in the house that can help thementally challenged
>Lou Diamond?
=========
Not sure anyone can help this proven LIAR.
>
> Just like a guy could be listed on his site as 57-49, then
> lose 4 in a row....his update should read: 57-53....but alas
> he posts on his site 59-51.....a guy complains that his website
> is in ERROR....the offender quickly CORRECTS THE MISTAKES
> then flames the complainant, calling him a LIAR, CHEAT and THIEF.
> (that's an ILLUSTRATION)
> But it makes a valid point.
> It's impossible to prove NOW if Tom was right when he said so.
> But just like the illustration, it doesn't mean he wasn't...
> So now you've branded him a LIAR for life. thanks for the help.
=======
FALSE!!
It's impossible to say whether he was or was not at the time
since the evidence which may have PROVED his statement,
may have since been erased or corrected -- for all we know...
> > Gag never proved his claim, retracted or apologized. Thus making
> > him a liar a cheat and a thief.
> ======
So if *YOU* fail to produce PROOF of *YOUR* recent claims
then *YOU* are "a liar, a cheat and a thief" also??
OKAY......afterall it's **YOUR** analogy!!
>He provided ABSOLUTELY no proof to back his claim.
========
This is VERY INTERESTING coming FROM **YOU** of all people!
You have failed to show proof to back **YOUR** claims that
- I complained about your site (in reference to "screen freezes")
- I stated instant fr odds was ANYWHERE on YOUR SITE
- that I post under an alias,
- that HCapper and STU Feiner are the same person
...YET YOU *WHINE* ABOUT TOM
TO PROVIDE PROOF TO BACK *HIS* CLAIM?!?!?
Amazing how much of a MORON you really are!!!
Simpy breath-taking you are this stupid!!!
You want the typical ASSHOLE DOUBLE-STANDARD:
everyone else must provide PROOF, but not Lou Diamond...
>Let's illustrate.
>If someone makes a claim that he is DOCUMENTED #1 by HBO,
>should they provide PROOF for that claim?
======
Yes.
Same applies for alleging Brian/Josh/HCapper/Max/Feiner
are all the same person.....or that Brian made complaints about
an unpopular website in direct relation to computer problems...
>If he was honestly mistaken, he would have said "I looked at the
>data and I was mistaken."
======
Unless of course the data really WAS IN ERROR AT THE TIME, ya MORON!!
> By not saying this or providing any proof, proves that his
>intent was to maliciously harm a competitors business with a blatant LIE in
>attempt to better himself.
=======
FALSE!!!
It proves no such thing, since you haven't established it was a lie,
nor have you established the "intent" you are asserting.
For all we know it WAS TRUE at the time, but the evidence
has been tampered with by the asshole site administrator...
>Providing NO PROOF to a slanderous claim is a blatant lie.
=======
FUNNY *YOU* SHOULD MENTION THAT!!
Where's your real PROOF that I "allegedly" complained
about YOUR site in DIRECT relation to screen freezes??
Where's your PROOF of YOUR slanderous claims of
"alleged" aliases, LIAR BOY?
Appears the fat crow is calling the swan ugly...
>He's is attempting to steal my client base
>by making that claim with no proof, making him a
>thief. Malicious slander IS considered cheating.
========
Wonderful theory, though totally UNsubstantiated by fact.
> >
> > Now, can you please show us where it says Instant fr Odds on the site?
> > If you FAIL to do so, this will PROVE once again, you are the LIAR...
> =====
Hellifyknow if it says instantfrodds *ON YOUR SITE* or not.
Never actually stated that it does.
Now show us where I alleged said instant fr-odds is on your site.
If you fail to do so, this will prove again you are a LIAR!
Lou Diamond
> > Lou Diamond wrote:
>
> >When the NY Times makes a negative claim that will harm a business,
> >the burden of proof is on them.
> ======
> Correct!
You seemed to skip over the part where the guy that Gags on Stu's 1/4 inch nob
has the same burden. Don't worry the FeinerBoys didn't catch that. They'll
still defend you.
>
>
> >Same holds true for all your aliases Brian/Josh/Max
> ======
> FALSE!!!
> Josh and Max are not related to me in any way, except they,
> along with 95%+ of this newsgroup, obviously dislike YOUR ACT.
Where's your exact evidence that came up with a specific number of 95%. How do
you how many people are in this group. You're a liar again--NEVER to be
trusted.
>
> Both participated in the recent FOOTBALL CHALLENGE as well as
> myself, HCapper, Gallagher, Steve, Bushay, Iceball
> Toutman, and about 13 -15 others.
> You are wrong.
How does that prove anything. Please just provide the documented evidence and
stop spinning.
>
> Whenf you continue to FALSELY ALLEGE they are aliases of mine
> then, following *YOUR VERY OWN WORDS* above:
> "the burden of PROOF" will fall to *YOU*
> And if you persist without PROOF,
> you will be indicting yourself a LIAR!
> (by YOUR own analogy!)
Are you saying you agree with my analogy? If so, why is Gags exempt?
>
>
> FTR, I do NOT post under any aliases on rgs!
Do you have any proof?
>
> All statements I make I post under my real name, Brian,
> and have done so for the 3 full years I've been here, son.
Where's the evidence?
>
> It is *YOU* who is known to post under
> several different aliases, COWARD BOY!
> Thus, you are a fraud too, as well as a proven liar.
Where's your proof?
>
>
>
> >Same holds true for ANY business/person reporting claims
> >that are harmful to the person being attacked.
> =======
> Only if there *IS* verifiable harm
> as decided by a jury of peers....
> Calling the "SKINHEADS" a bunch of COWARDLY, ASSHOLES,
> would *NOT* require PROOF ...unless they can
> establish that those statements have (or would have)
> caused their association actual harm in some meaningful way...
> This will always be a "judgement call" by a jury of our peers
> and the "SKINHEADS" would lose...
> There's an analogy here one should understand,
> but only if one is not an illiterate MORON...
So when I say that Tom Gallagher begs Stu Feiner to give him a job, it's
automatically true unless judged against in a court of law. Thanks for
agreeing.
>
>
> >Is there a 1st grader in the house that can help thementally challenged
> >Lou Diamond?
> =========
> Not sure anyone can help this proven LIAR.
who are you posting as here? Brian talking to Brain?
>
>
> >
> > Just like a guy could be listed on his site as 57-49, then
> > lose 4 in a row....his update should read: 57-53....but alas
> > he posts on his site 59-51.....a guy complains that his website
> > is in ERROR....the offender quickly CORRECTS THE MISTAKES
> > then flames the complainant, calling him a LIAR, CHEAT and THIEF.
> > (that's an ILLUSTRATION)
> > But it makes a valid point.
> > It's impossible to prove NOW if Tom was right when he said so.
> > But just like the illustration, it doesn't mean he wasn't...
>
> > So now you've branded him a LIAR for life. thanks for the help.
> =======
> FALSE!!
> It's impossible to say whether he was or was not at the time
> since the evidence which may have PROVED his statement,
> may have since been erased or corrected -- for all we know...
TRUE! You yourself admit that burden is on HIM. He failed to PROVE *his*
CLAIM. Thus making him a liar, thief and cheat. THUS>>>> Making you a piece of
shit scamming FeinerBoy conspiring to cover up LIES!! Remember, when something
REALLY bad happens in your life....think about your conspiracy to cover up lies
with STUpid Feiner.
>
>
> > > Gag never proved his claim, retracted or apologized. Thus making
> > > him a liar a cheat and a thief.
> > ======
> So if *YOU* fail to produce PROOF of *YOUR* recent claims
> then *YOU* are "a liar, a cheat and a thief" also??
Well if you believe that, than you MUST believe Tom Gallagher is a liar. I
could care less what someone thinks about what I say about you. *YOU* must now
AGREE that Tom Gallagher is a LIAR or once again YOU will be proven a LIAR!
>
> OKAY......afterall it's **YOUR** analogy!!
So you agree that Tom is a LIAR. If you want to call me a liar, thief and cheat
because of something I said about you, A NON COMPETITOR, WHO MAKES UNFOUNDED
ALLEGATIONS TOWARDS MY BUSINESS, so be it. Tom Galgher LIES, CHEATS and STEALS
from competitors for personal gain. HE SHOULD NEVER BE TRUSTED. AS WELL AS
YOU!
>
>
> >He provided ABSOLUTELY no proof to back his claim.
> ========
> This is VERY INTERESTING coming FROM **YOU** of all people!
> You have failed to show proof to back **YOUR** claims that
> - I complained about your site (in reference to "screen freezes")
Yes I have. You refuse to accept it. I'm cool with that. I just really enjoy
making you what you hate to be.
> - I stated instant fr odds was ANYWHERE on YOUR SITE
I rephrased the question. You attempted to spin around it. You got busted RED
Handed in a LIE. I'm pretty confident your story isn't even close to being
bought by intelligent life.
>
> - that I post under an alias,
I could play your 1st grade game of I asked you first. Can you prove for a fact
that *I* have used an alias. How do you know it wasn't one of my employees on
my computer? Thus once again, YOU'RE a LIAR!
>
> - that HCapper and STU Feiner are the same person
No he's not. He a petty scammer who will do anything for STUpid Feiner to get
leads. He only makes about 30dimes a year. Why do you think he hasn't been
sued? Ranger on the other hand has some nice documents coming in the mail
soon. When I get his and Stu's money, than I go after i2 technology for big
money and make sure Gary gets fired. When that's done maybe I toy with
HCapper. But I promise...wheels are NOW in motion.
>
> ...YET YOU *WHINE* ABOUT TOM
> TO PROVIDE PROOF TO BACK *HIS* CLAIM?!?!?
Tom made a false claim about a competitor. He accompanied his business
signature with his post. 'Nuff said. Stop trying to spin out of this. You
really look bad.
>
> Amazing how much of a MORON you really are!!!
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
>
> Simpy breath-taking you are this stupid!!!
Again with the same thoughts
>
> You want the typical ASSHOLE DOUBLE-STANDARD:
> everyone else must provide PROOF, but not Lou Diamond...
What are the chance of this...I was just thinking the same thing about you.
Give us some PROBABILITY on that, would ya?
>
>
> >Let's illustrate.
> >If someone makes a claim that he is DOCUMENTED #1 by HBO,
> >should they provide PROOF for that claim?
> ======
> Yes.
> Same applies for alleging Brian/Josh/HCapper/Max/Feiner
> are all the same person.....or that Brian made complaints about
> an unpopular website in direct relation to computer problems...
Once again, this DOES mean you agree that Gags is a LIAR, CHEAT and THIEF.
>
>
> >If he was honestly mistaken, he would have said "I looked at the
> >data and I was mistaken."
> ======
> Unless of course the data really WAS IN ERROR AT THE TIME, ya MORON!!
Now wouldn't a respectable business that DOESN'T LIE, CHEAT and STEAL provide
PROOF at the time of the CLAIM?
>
>
> > By not saying this or providing any proof, proves that his
> >intent was to maliciously harm a competitors business with a blatant LIE in
> >attempt to better himself.
> =======
> FALSE!!!
> It proves no such thing, since you haven't established it was a lie,
have you established that Josh and Max are not your alter personalities?
> nor have you established the "intent" you are asserting.
No PROOF for a "so-called" established business making harmful claims against a
competitor = malicious intent
>
> For all we know it WAS TRUE at the time,
FALSE! It's available for FREE to everyone. What's so hard about backing a
claim.
> but the evidence
> has been tampered with by the asshole site administrator...
Do you have any evidence of being it tampered Mr. Fucking LIAR? Gallagher is
such a PUSSY he didn't even say which data it was. How the fuck can it be
tampered with. Prove you didn't just LIE here. ASSHOLE!
>
>
> >Providing NO PROOF to a slanderous claim is a blatant lie.
> =======
> FUNNY *YOU* SHOULD MENTION THAT!!
> Where's your real PROOF that I "allegedly" complained
> about YOUR site in DIRECT relation to screen freezes??
> Where's your PROOF of YOUR slanderous claims of
> "alleged" aliases, LIAR BOY?
> Appears the fat crow is calling the swan ugly...
How come I'm the only one who has to answer?
>
>
> >He's is attempting to steal my client base
> >by making that claim with no proof, making him a
> >thief. Malicious slander IS considered cheating.
> ========
> Wonderful theory, though totally UNsubstantiated by fact.
Nice try, spinny. Speaking of facts, when do we get yours? When will you put
the spinning monster away and accept responsibility for you malicious actions?
Remember, when something REALLY, REALLY bad happens, check your references.
> > >
> > > Now, can you please show us where it says Instant fr Odds on the site?
> > > If you FAIL to do so, this will PROVE once again, you are the LIAR...
> > =====
> Hellifyknow if it says instantfrodds *ON YOUR SITE* or not.
> Never actually stated that it does.
> Now show us where I alleged said instant fr-odds is on your site.
> If you fail to do so, this will prove again you are a LIAR!
Ya know, no matter how many times must I rephrase the question, your lie will
still be there. But don't worry Gallagher is sold on your spin.
Br...@nospam.ca
> > >When the NY Times makes a negative claim that will harm a business,
> > >the burden of proof is on them.
> > ======
> > Correct!
> >
> > >Same holds true for all your aliases Brian/Josh/Max
> > ======
> > FALSE!!!
> > Josh and Max are not related to me in any way, except they,
> > along with 95%+ of this newsgroup, obviously dislike YOUR ACT.
>
> Where's your exact evidence that came up with a specific number of 95%. How do
> you how many people are in this group.
=========
Hmmm, let's use an anolgy:
I say the city of PITTSBURGH exists, but I CAN'T actually PROVE it to you.
By *YOUR* definition, then its a lie? Pittsburgh does not exist,
because Brian can't support his claim that it does?
Get help Lou.
Soon.
> How does that prove anything. Please just provide the documented evidence and
> stop spinning.
======
Well I am waiting for *YOU* to FIRST provide the documented evidence of
an alleged "complaint" by me (in direct reference to your site)
which is what started all this.....YOUR INITIAL LIE!
So, just stop spinning and provide the documented FACTS.
> >
> > Whenf you continue to FALSELY ALLEGE they are aliases of mine
> > then, following *YOUR VERY OWN WORDS* above:
> > "the burden of PROOF" will fall to *YOU*
> > And if you persist without PROOF,
> > you will be indicting yourself a LIAR!
> > (by YOUR own analogy!)
>
> Are you saying you agree with my analogy?
======
ABSOLUTELY!! And if you were literate you'd know I stated this.
I also AGREE that it APPLIES TO LOU DIAMOND too!!!
And since it was *YOUR* false assertions which started
my involvement in this series of recent threads,
it is YOU who has the initial burden of proof
(as it relates to me and my specific involvement this week)
> If so, why is Gags exempt?
=======
If YOU have a problem WITH HIM, then *YOU* deal with him.
> >
> > FTR, I do NOT post under any aliases on rgs!
>
> Do you have any proof?
========
Since *YOU* made the initial allegation about aliases,
it is YOU who must support YOUR claims...
Or else you are a LIAR.
> >
> > All statements I make I post under my real name, Brian,
> > and have done so for the 3 full years I've been here, son.
>
> Where's the evidence?
========
For those who are literate, the proof is verifiable on DEJA.
This won't include you however.
> >
> > It is *YOU* who is known to post under
> > several different aliases, COWARD BOY!
> > Thus, you are a fraud too, as well as a proven liar.
>
> So?
>
> >
> >
> > >Same holds true for ANY business/person reporting claims
> > >that are harmful to the person being attacked.
> > =======
> > Only if there *IS* verifiable harm
> > as decided by a jury of peers....
> > Calling the "SKINHEADS" a bunch of COWARDLY, ASSHOLES,
> > would *NOT* require PROOF ...unless they can
> > establish that those statements have (or would have)
> > caused their association actual harm in some meaningful way...
> > This will always be a "judgement call" by a jury of our peers
> > and the "SKINHEADS" would lose...
> > There's an analogy here one should understand,
> > but only if one is not an illiterate MORON...
>
> So when I say that Tom Gallagher begs Stu Feiner to give him a job, it's
> automatically true unless judged against in a court of law.
=======
Who said it would be "automatically true"???
Show me where it says that, LIAR BOY.
> > >
> > > Just like a guy could be listed on his site as 57-49, then
> > > lose 4 in a row....his update should read: 57-53....but alas
> > > he posts on his site 59-51.....a guy complains that his website
> > > is in ERROR....the offender quickly CORRECTS THE MISTAKES
> > > then flames the complainant, calling him a LIAR, CHEAT and THIEF.
> > > (that's an ILLUSTRATION)
> > > But it makes a valid point.
> > > It's impossible to prove NOW if Tom was right when he said so.
> > > But just like the illustration, it doesn't mean he wasn't...
> >
>He failed to PROVE *his* CLAIM.
> Thus making him a liar, thief and cheat.
========
FALSE!!
It's impossible to say whether he could prove or not at the time
since the evidence which may have PROVED his statement,
may have since been erased or corrected -- for all we know...
> THUS>>>> Making you a piece of
> shit scamming FeinerBoy conspiring to cover up LIES!!
========
Since the above premises are FALSE, and coming from a PROVEN LIAR,
it follows that your conclusion MUST be false too.
You are too easy, chump....
> >
> > > > Gag never proved his claim, retracted or apologized. Thus making
> > > > him a liar a cheat and a thief.
> > > ======
So if *YOU* fail to produce PROOF of *YOUR* recent claims
then *YOU* are "a liar, a cheat and a thief" also??
OKAY......afterall it's **YOUR** analogy!!
>
> So you agree that Tom is a LIAR.
=========
You got a problem with TOM, do ya?
Then YOU deal with it.
I'm not concerned with him.
Right now, YOU and YOUR false claims are the problem.
> If you want to call me a liar, thief and cheat
> because of something I said about you, A NON COMPETITOR, WHO MAKES UNFOUNDED
> ALLEGATIONS TOWARDS MY BUSINESS, so be it.
======
Well there's another one of your documented lies.
Since I have not made UNFOUNDED allegations toward your business.
I have no direct knowledge if you are a thief or a cheat,
though in your specific case, it would be reasonable to hold
those suspicions.
You are however, a PROVEN LIAR.
Because of that, NOTHING you say can be accepted at face
value as truthful.
> >
> > >He provided ABSOLUTELY no proof to back his claim.
> > ========
> > This is VERY INTERESTING coming FROM **YOU** of all people!
> > You have failed to show proof to back **YOUR** claims that
> > - I complained about your site (in reference to "screen freezes")
>
> Yes I have. You refuse to accept it.
=====
No, you haven't, because I made no such complaint.
YOU ARE LYING!
Just stop your spinning and show us this real evidence
that of this "alleged" complaint
> > - I stated instant fr odds was ANYWHERE on YOUR SITE
>
> I rephrased the question. You attempted to spin around it. You got busted RED
> Handed in a LIE.
========
You EVADED answering to the FALSE ALLEGATION you made, is more like it!!!
You got busted red handed, and refrasing your question is the PROOF!!
This is just too freakin easy....
> > - that I post under an alias,
>
> I could play your 1st grade game of I asked you first. Can you prove for a fact
> that *I* have used an alias. How do you know it wasn't one of my employees on
> my computer? Thus once again, YOU'RE a LIAR!
========
If I'm right, I'm not a liar.
To assert I am a liar when the facts haven't been established either way,
means YOU are a LIAR.
> >
> > - that HCapper and STU Feiner are the same person
>
> No he's not.
==========
Boy we've come a long way in our session today.
You finally admit HCapper is not Stu Feiner! A monumental breakthrough.
Really. I'm thrilled. You have no idea....
> He a petty scammer who will do anything for STUpid Feiner to get
> leads. He only makes about 30dimes a year.
=========
Shall we play *YOUR* preschooler game of "where's your proof?"
> Why do you think he hasn't been sued?
========
How do you know he hasn't been sued? Where's your proof??
> Ranger on the other hand has some nice documents coming in the mail
> soon. When I get his and Stu's money, than I go after i2 technology for big
> money and make sure Gary gets fired. When that's done maybe I toy with
> HCapper. But I promise...wheels are NOW in motion.
=======
I'm laughing at your pathetic "preschooler" sabre rattling, MORON BOY.
I think most current readers are also...
> >
> > Amazing how much of a MORON you really are Lou!!!
>
> Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
======
Well, you really got me there.
Thanks :-)
I'm laughing so hard now......oh what's the point, I'm pretty sure
you don't get it anyway...
But this one is another LOU SPECIAL to be framed for eternity...
Hey guys, read the above and tell me what you think after
you finally regain control...
> >
> > >Let's illustrate.
> > >If someone makes a claim that he is DOCUMENTED #1 by HBO,
> > >should they provide PROOF for that claim?
> > ======
Yes.
Same applies for alleging Brian/Josh/HCapper/Max/Feiner
are all the same person.....or that Brian made complaints about
an unpopular website in direct relation to computer problems...
> >
> > >If he was honestly mistaken, he would have said "I looked at the
> > >data and I was mistaken."
> > ======
Unless of course the data really WAS IN ERROR AT THE TIME, ya MORON!!
> > > By not saying this or providing any proof, proves that his
> > >intent was to maliciously harm a competitors business with a blatant LIE in
> > >attempt to better himself.
> > =======
> > FALSE!!!
> > It proves no such thing, since you haven't established it was a lie,
>
> have you established that Josh and Max are not your alter personalities?
========
Well, no. Do I have to? I mean, although you are a documented ASSHOLE
I thought you were reasonably intelligent. But, according to YOUR reasoning,
if I can't PROVE that you are intelligent, then it must NOT be true!
Thanks for clearing that up, MORON BOY.
> >
> > For all we know it WAS TRUE at the time, but the evidence
> > has been tampered with by the asshole site administrator...
>
> Do you have any evidence of being it tampered Mr. Fucking LIAR?
> Prove you didn't just LIE here. ASSHOLE!
========
It's simple MORON BOY...pay attention.
The first 4 words above suspend the proclivity to a factual
statement....IOW, they suggest it *COULD* be true but make
no definitive statement it is actual fact.
This is similar to a non-liar stating **clearly & deliberately**
quote; in regards to "screen freezes" and a website:
> "...though it may or may not be related"
Since you have a demonstrated low competancy with literacy
I'm not surprised you misunderstand....Perhaps we can find
a preschooler to expalin it all to you.....assuming he/she
doesn't give up in frustration.
> >
> > >Providing NO PROOF to a slanderous claim is a blatant lie.
> > =======
> > FUNNY *YOU* SHOULD MENTION THAT!!
> > Where's your real PROOF that I "allegedly" complained
> > about YOUR site in DIRECT relation to screen freezes??
> > Where's your PROOF of YOUR slanderous claims of
> > "alleged" aliases, LIAR BOY?
> > Appears the fat crow is calling the swan ugly...
>
> How come I'm the only one who has to answer?
==========
If YOU have problems with others regarding THEIR claims
take it up with THEM directly.
You need to answer to me, because it is YOU and your false claims
concerning ME that I have a problem with...
That's why.
There is a distinct difference.
Now if you can't understand the difference,
maybe we can impose on a preschooler to explain it to you.
Tough I doubt he/she will have the patience...
HCapper98
>> And what client base would that be?
>
>The kind you pick up from positive exposure on national tv. The kind that
>you lie, cheat and steal to get, but still can't get.
===============
Subject: B.P.NBA 2000 Week 18 - Final Standings
From: iceb...@aol.com (IceBall 69)
Date: 03/05/2000 12:37 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20000305003751...@ng-fu1.aol.com>
NBA 2000 Week 18 - Final Standings
Gallagher Rolls to Title #4
Gallagher: 93-70-3, +57.24 since 1/16/00
dman: Two new records - Wins: 10; Units gained: 20.40
21.12 8-2-1 Gallagher****
10.56 4-1 Vodoo
3.47 17-12-1 RS*
3.01 3-2 McCarville
2.92 3-2 Marlon
-1.40 15-14 dman*
-7.45 3-6 Pollock
-8.36 1-4 Ginsjuice***
Gallagher : 2-0 +7.28 W1
YTD: 129-105-8 +51.01
1u: 19-18-1 2u: 7-6 4u: 103-81-7
Sides: 78-60-4 Totals: 51-45-4
HCapper98
>You seemed to skip over the part where the guy that Gags on Stu's 1/4 inch
>nob
>has the same burden.
How do you know so much about Stu's knob? Huh?
Brian wrote:
>> It is *YOU* who is known to post under
>> several different aliases, COWARD BOY!
Colin replied:
>Where's your proof?
A Long Island Railroad Shooting Victim testified:
I saw you point the gun at me, I saw you pull the trigger, I heard a loud
"bang" and then I had a gunshot wound in my shoulder.
Lou Diamond replied:
>Where's your proof?
HCapper98
>> - that HCapper and STU Feiner are the same person
>
>No he's not. He a petty scammer who will do anything for STUpid Feiner to
>get
>leads. He only makes about 30dimes a year. Why do you think he hasn't been
>sued?
I haven't been sued by you for two reasons. Number one, you have no idea who I
am, (and last I checked you can't serve a cartoon, unless you're Roger Rabbit)
and it kills you fantasizing about who I might be, and number two, you will
have to prove that something I did or said caused you some sort of damages. So
unless you lost more money this year than you lost last year directly because
of something I did or said, and can PROVE that, you haven't got a prayer. OR a
case. Ask Tony Cabot, he'll tell you, if you even know his office number, or
if he'll even take your call, as if I EVEN ever heard of this guy! BWA!
Doing his best impersonation yet of Colin Ferguson, deLOUsional Lou continues:
>Ranger on the other hand has some nice documents coming in the mail
>soon.
>When I get his and Stu's money, than I go after i2 technology for big
>money and make sure Gary gets fired.
>When that's done maybe I toy with
>HCapper.
>But I promise...wheels are NOW in motion.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
IN
YOUR
FAT
PUDGY
UGLY
FACE
!!!!!!!!!!!
Yea, we know Louis, it's early!! B W A H A H A H A H A H A H A H A H A H A H A
H
A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
>Tom made a false claim about a competitor.
Hey fucko, then how come he's not getting sued too? C'mon fatboy, SUE
EVERYBODY!!!!!
And the nerve of you to call yourself Tom's competitor. HIS website doesn't
have a VIRUS! Your only competition Louise, are the guys washing the windows at
the entrance to the Midtown Tunnel.
>Now wouldn't a respectable business that DOESN'T LIE, CHEAT and STEAL provide
>PROOF at the time of the CLAIM?
>
Not if he had no desire to help you find your errors, asshole. Why should
ANYBODY help you? If they don't do a good enough job helping you, you might .
. . SUE THEM! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>No PROOF for a "so-called" established business making harmful claims against
>a
>competitor = malicious intent
The guy found errors in your data. So did I. So did a lot of people. Instead
of screaming that there can't possibly be errors in your database, maybe you
should go over the numbers....
>Gallagher is
>such a PUSSY he didn't even say which data it was.
Can't blame him.. his attorney probably advised him not to mention which data
so he wouldn't be SUED BY YOU!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What a bufoon you are. Ask your monkey wife to look at the posts from teh last
three days and maybe SHE can tell you what an IDIOT you look like!
BWA
HAHA
HA
!
Josh
The discription fits him to a tee. I'll bet he demands proof of this too.
Lou Diamond
> FAT BASTARD wrote:
>
> > > >When the NY Times makes a negative claim that will harm a business,
> > > >the burden of proof is on them.
> > > ======
> > > Correct!
>
> > >
> > > >Same holds true for all your aliases Brian/Josh/Max
> > > ======
> > > FALSE!!!
> > > Josh and Max are not related to me in any way, except they,
> > > along with 95%+ of this newsgroup, obviously dislike YOUR ACT.
> >
> > Where's your exact evidence that came up with a specific number of 95%. How do
> > you how many people are in this group.
> =========
> Hmmm, let's use an anolgy:
> I say the city of PITTSBURGH exists, but I CAN'T actually PROVE it to you.
> By *YOUR* definition, then its a lie? Pittsburgh does not exist,
> because Brian can't support his claim that it does?
Why couldn't you prove it? They have plenty of pictures of the city all over the net
for free.
>
> Get help Lou.
> Soon.
Damn, just thinking the same thing about you AGAIN. Better figure that PROBABILITY
thing over again.
>
>
> > How does that prove anything. Please just provide the documented evidence and
> > stop spinning.
> ======
> Well I am waiting for *YOU* to FIRST provide the documented evidence of
> an alleged "complaint" by me (in direct reference to your site)
> which is what started all this.....YOUR INITIAL LIE!
> So, just stop spinning and provide the documented FACTS.
Already did. I stand behind what I said. You're more than welcome to judge me on
that.
Now, why are you so scared to provide proof to your claims?
You said InstantOdds keeps forgetting to put the fr in the middle of it's screen
name. How is that FACT over opinion?
You said that 95% of the people in RGS don't like me. How did you specifically come
to that number to PROVE it as FACT, SpinBoy?
>
>
> > >
> > > Whenf you continue to FALSELY ALLEGE they are aliases of mine
> > > then, following *YOUR VERY OWN WORDS* above:
> > > "the burden of PROOF" will fall to *YOU*
> > > And if you persist without PROOF,
> > > you will be indicting yourself a LIAR!
> > > (by YOUR own analogy!)
> >
> > Are you saying you agree with my analogy?
> ======
> ABSOLUTELY!! And if you were literate you'd know I stated this.
> I also AGREE that it APPLIES TO LOU DIAMOND too!!!
Fine call me a liar because I claimed UNKNOWN posters were one without facts. You
sure got me.
>
> And since it was *YOUR* false assertions which started
> my involvement in this series of recent threads,
> it is YOU who has the initial burden of proof
> (as it relates to me and my specific involvement this week)
I told you I gave you my answer. If you want to call me a liar because YOU don't like
my answer, so be it. NO SWEAT OFF MY BACK!! But NOW you MUST admit that TOM
Gallagher is a LIAR which in turn makes YOU a LIAR. You can play spin all you want,
but WE know the truth, don't we, LiarBoy?
>
>
> > If so, why is Gags exempt?
> =======
> If YOU have a problem WITH HIM, then *YOU* deal with him.
*You* made a CLAIM that I was Lying when I said the Gags is a LIAR. *You* made the
first move. The burden is on *YOU* to either retract, apologize for LYING or live
with a LIE. I prefer the latter. when something REALLY, REALLY, REALLY bad
happens...RGS is a great reference to your deceit.
>
>
> > >
> > > FTR, I do NOT post under any aliases on rgs!
> >
> > Do you have any proof?
> ========
> Since *YOU* made the initial allegation about aliases,
> it is YOU who must support YOUR claims...
> Or else you are a LIAR.
Tell it to Gags. He's the one that made you a LIAR. You claimed he wasn't a LIAR,
CHEAT and THIEF 1st. It's YOUR burden.
>
>
> > >
> > > All statements I make I post under my real name, Brian,
> > > and have done so for the 3 full years I've been here, son.
> >
> > Where's the evidence?
> ========
> For those who are literate, the proof is verifiable on DEJA.
> This won't include you however.
>
Since you claim I'm illiterate, please explain HOW this is PROOF you don't use an
alias. I'm sure there's plenty of illiterates around here that can't figure this one
out, SpinBoy.
>
> > >
> > > It is *YOU* who is known to post under
> > > several different aliases, COWARD BOY!
> > > Thus, you are a fraud too, as well as a proven liar.
> >
> > So?
Did I write this, or is someone FORGING my name behind things the WANT me to say?
Have you NO shame, FeinerBoy?
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Same holds true for ANY business/person reporting claims
> > > >that are harmful to the person being attacked.
> > > =======
> > > Only if there *IS* verifiable harm
> > > as decided by a jury of peers....
> > > Calling the "SKINHEADS" a bunch of COWARDLY, ASSHOLES,
> > > would *NOT* require PROOF ...unless they can
> > > establish that those statements have (or would have)
> > > caused their association actual harm in some meaningful way...
> > > This will always be a "judgement call" by a jury of our peers
> > > and the "SKINHEADS" would lose...
> > > There's an analogy here one should understand,
> > > but only if one is not an illiterate MORON...
> >
> > So when I say that Tom Gallagher begs Stu Feiner to give him a job, it's
> > automatically true unless judged against in a court of law.
> =======
> Who said it would be "automatically true"???
> Show me where it says that, LIAR BOY.
>
Here, let's give you something you can understand. Jim Fiest and his stable gives out
both sides of the games all week long. He has not been judged against by his peers
for that. Does that mean you endorse his practices? In other words, just because Tom
hasn't been judged yet in a court of law, doesn't mean he can make defamatory claims
with providing evidence and NOT be considered a LIAR. He is to be considered a LIAR.
You defended his UNdocumented UNverifiable UNproven CLAIMS which are known FACTS to be
LIES. He has been too SCARED to even bring ANY evidence to the table. You said I
corrected the errors.The was NO evidence presented to correct. YOU ARE A LIAR. You
defend a LIAR. Whine all you want, make all the spin attempts you want, but...YOU ARE
A LIAR. No ifs and or buts about it.
>
> > > >
> > > > Just like a guy could be listed on his site as 57-49, then
> > > > lose 4 in a row....his update should read: 57-53....but alas
> > > > he posts on his site 59-51.....a guy complains that his website
> > > > is in ERROR....the offender quickly CORRECTS THE MISTAKES
> > > > then flames the complainant, calling him a LIAR, CHEAT and THIEF.
> > > > (that's an ILLUSTRATION)
> > > > But it makes a valid point.
> > > > It's impossible to prove NOW if Tom was right when he said so.
> > > > But just like the illustration, it doesn't mean he wasn't...
> > >
>
> >He failed to PROVE *his* CLAIM.
> > Thus making him a liar, thief and cheat.
> ========
> FALSE!!
> It's impossible to say whether he could prove or not at the time
> since the evidence which may have PROVED his statement,
> may have since been erased or corrected -- for all we know...
>
> > THUS>>>> Making you a piece of
> > shit scamming FeinerBoy conspiring to cover up LIES!!
> ========
> Since the above premises are FALSE, and coming from a PROVEN LIAR,
> it follows that your conclusion MUST be false too.
> You are too easy, chump....
Since this last statement came from a DOCUMENTED LIAR, this statement MUST be FALSE!!
>
>
> > >
> > > > > Gag never proved his claim, retracted or apologized. Thus making
> > > > > him a liar a cheat and a thief.
> > > > ======
> So if *YOU* fail to produce PROOF of *YOUR* recent claims
> then *YOU* are "a liar, a cheat and a thief" also??
> OKAY......afterall it's **YOUR** analogy!!
>
> >
> > So you agree that Tom is a LIAR.
> =========
> You got a problem with TOM, do ya?
> Then YOU deal with it.
> I'm not concerned with him.
> Right now, YOU and YOUR false claims are the problem.
No. YOU defended this LIAR. That IS the issue. Stop running away from your LIES.
Ya know what, you really bore me. Making you look like the fool you are was fun, I'm
sure we can play "you said it first so you must answer first" again real soon. Your
lies are out there. I'm VERY satisfied with the way you've PROVEN that you're a LIAR
and a HYPOCRITE.
.
Because of that, NOTHING you say can be accepted at face value as truthful.
Let me know when you want to take responsibility for your actions, LiarBoy!
Br...@nospam.ca
> > > Where's your exact evidence that came up with a specific number of 95%. How do
> > > you how many people are in this group.
> > =========
> > Hmmm, let's use an anolgy:
> > I say the city of PITTSBURGH exists, but I CAN'T actually PROVE it to you.
> > By *YOUR* definition, then its a lie? Pittsburgh does not exist,
> > because Brian can't support his claim that it does?
>
> Why couldn't you prove it? They have plenty of pictures of the city all over the net
> for free.
=======
Why can't anyone PROVE everything, or anything?
I can't even prove that you aren't a homosexual fat man.
You may not be for all we know.
I think you aren't, BUT I CAN'T PROVE IT!!!!
By your logic, since I can't prove it, then it's NOT TRUE?
And I am waiting for *YOU* to FIRST provide the documented evidence of
an alleged "complaint" by me (in direct reference to your site)
which is what started all this.....YOUR INITIAL LIE!
So, just stop spinning and provide the documented FACTS.
>
> Already did.
==========
You are lying again, since you have NOT provided the documented FACTS.
This is the original issue.
The facts are documented, verifiable and readily available.
And you have not supported your claims.
> Now, why are you so scared to provide proof to your claims?
> You said InstantOdds keeps forgetting to put the fr in the middle of it's screen
> name. How is that FACT over opinion?
==========
You also fail to add FAT BASTARD, MASTER BAITER and
DOCUMENTED #1 ASSHOLE in your screen name too!
> You said that 95% of the people in RGS don't like me.
=========
No, I did not you illiterate MORON.
> > > > When you continue to FALSELY ALLEGE they are aliases of mine
> > > > then, following *YOUR VERY OWN WORDS* above:
> > > > "the burden of PROOF" will fall to *YOU*
> > > > And if you persist without PROOF,
> > > > you will be indicting yourself a LIAR!
> > > > (by YOUR own analogy!)
> > >
> > > Are you saying you agree with my analogy?
> > ======
> > ABSOLUTELY!! And if you were literate you'd know I stated this.
> > I also AGREE that it APPLIES TO LOU DIAMOND too!!!
>
> Fine call me a liar ...
========
OK. You're a liar.
> > And since it was *YOUR* false assertions which started
> > my involvement in this series of recent threads,
> > it is YOU who has the initial burden of proof
> > (as it relates to me and my specific involvement this week)
>
> I told you I gave you my answer.
==========
You gave "an answer" but NO facts to support your claims.
There's a difference, MORON BOY!
> >
> > > If so, why is Gags exempt?
=======
If YOU have a problem WITH HIM, then *YOU* deal with him.
> > > > FTR, I do NOT post under any aliases on rgs!
> > >
> > > Do you have any proof?
========
Since *YOU* made the initial allegation about aliases,
it is YOU who must support YOUR claims...you have plenty
of opportunity to provide FACTS to support your claims
> Tell it to Gags. He's the one that made you a LIAR. You claimed he wasn't a LIAR,
> CHEAT and THIEF 1st. It's YOUR burden.
========
Ah yes, LOU being EVASIVE about the issue. Just like a LIAR.
Can't support YOUR OWN claims so change the topic...
If you got a problem with Tom, take it up with him.
> > > >
> > > > All statements I make I post under my real name, Brian,
> > > > and have done so for the 3 full years I've been here, son.
> > >
> > > Where's the evidence?
> > ========
> > For those who are literate, the proof is verifiable on DEJA.
> > This won't include you however.
> >
>
> Since you claim I'm illiterate, please explain HOW this is PROOF you don't use an
> alias. I'm sure there's plenty of illiterates around here that can't figure this one
> out, SpinBoy.
==========
Never said that you being illiterate proves I don't use an alias.
This just proves YOU ARE ILLITERATE!
Thanks!
> >
> > Amazing how much of a MORON you really are Lou!!!
>
> Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
======
Well, you really got me there.
Thanks :-)
I'm laughing so hard now......oh what's the point, I'm pretty sure
you don't get it anyway...
But this one is another LOU SPECIAL to be framed for eternity...
Hey guys, read the above and tell me what you think after
you finally regain control...
> > > So when I say that Tom Gallagher begs Stu Feiner to give him a job, it's
> > > automatically true unless judged against in a court of law.
> > =======
> > Who said it would be "automatically true"???
> > Show me where it says that, LIAR BOY.
> >
=========
Hey, MORON BOY! Still waiting for you to show us where it says
it would be "automatically true"....
Quit your spinning and show us.
>You said I corrected the errors.
> The was NO evidence presented to correct. YOU ARE A LIAR.
========
NO, I did *NOT* say that.
Show us where I said you did in fact "correct the errors" LIAR BOY!
C'mon...prove me wrong if you can.
Where's your evidence???
Just show us, ya MORON.
Someday, with practice, you'll raise your reading skills up to
the 6th grade level.......we hope.....
But if I'm wrong, go ahead and show us your documented PROOF
that I said you did in fact correct the alleged errors.
C'mon LIAR BOY. Should be easy enough.
It's all documented on DEJA now...
> > Gag never proved his claim, retracted or apologized. Thus making
> > him a liar a cheat and a thief.
======
So if **YOU** fail to produce PROOF of *YOUR* recent claims
then *YOU* are "a liar, a cheat and a thief" also??
It's **YOUR** analogy!!
Since my concern is with YOUR initial false claims from
Tuesday, where you state I made a complaint
(in regards to your site and computer freezing)
then by YOUR warped logic,
the fact that you have not yet provided FACTS to support your
false claims, you must be [quote] "a liar a cheat and a thief"
By your own logic.
> No. YOU defended this LIAR. That IS the issue.
> Stop running away from your LIES.
========
No that's NOT the issue.
That's **YOUR** issue with TOM.
Take it up with him.
*OUR* issue (beginning on Tuesday) is YOUR initial
false claims regarding an "alleged" complaint...
for which you are persistently evasive about
and have failed to demonstrate your alleged facts
despite the clear opportunity to do so....
Lou Diamond
<snip>
I don't even read you anymore. I'm dizzy from your spinning. I'm bored of your 1st grade
game of "You said it first". I GAVE you my answer. If you don't like it FINE. That was
my answer. I'M STICKING WITH IT. C-A-N Y-O-U U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D?. Now stop hiding and
spinning. Just answer the damn questions.
How do you know for a FACT that 95% of RGS doesn't like me? I mean, specifics on how you
arrived at that number as FACT, as you so implied!!
You claimed that InstantOdds left out the fr in the name. It's a FACT that they didn't. A
FACT that a pre-schooler can understand. Why do you insist you did not LIE when you said
the fr was left out even though it is FACT that it never belonged there.
You admit yourself that Tom Gallagher CHEATED by NOT providing evidence to support his
claim of errors in my database. You defended him saying he's not a CHEATER. That makes you
a LIAR. What is you explanation for this LIE!
Simple. If you keep coming back with "I asked you first", it will on PROVE to everyone, a
little further, how you LIE, CHEAT and STEAL. My only hope is that you are STUpid enough
to come back with your pre-school argument.
HCapper98
>How do you know for a FACT that 95% of RGS doesn't like me?
95%? He's being kind. I challenge you to find ONE supporter here. If you ask
me the number is more like 100%.
>You claimed that InstantOdds left out the fr in the name. It's a FACT that
>they
>didn't.
Well then they should put it in as it would be a better indication of what
people are getting involved with when they have anything to do with you, ya
FRAUD.
Instant FRodd. (Instant Fraud)
>Why do you insist you did not LIE
>when you said the fr was left out even though it is FACT that it never
>belonged there.
It DOES belong there. It is a more accurate depiction of what you do... ya
FRAUD!
>You admit yourself that Tom Gallagher CHEATED by NOT providing evidence to
>support his
>claim of errors in my database.
Your USELESS database is RIFE with errors. Tom is not the only one that found
them.
>Simple. If you keep coming back with "I asked you first", it will on PROVE
>to
>everyone,
You haven't proven anything to anyone. In the last few days you have actually
made yourself look worse. Not that I or anybody would expect you to realize
that.
Lou Diamond = Colin Ferguson
Lou Diamond = Corrupt Database
Lou Diamond = VIRUS master
Lou Diamond = Fat Bastard
Lou Diamond = Master Baiter
Lou Diamond = Not wanted in RGS
Lou Diamond = Handicapper with lots of free time during March madness . . .
draw your own conclusion
HCapper98
Lou Diamond
<snip>
Lou Diamond
<snip>
Br...@nospam.ca
>
> Br...@nospam.ca wrote:
>
> > > Lou Diamond wrote:
> >
> > >When the NY Times makes
> >
>
> >
> > Amazing how much of a MORON you really are!!!
>
> Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
>
> >
> > Simpy breath-taking you are this stupid!!!
>
> Again with the same thoughts
>
=========
Lou's documented quote from DEJA NEWS archives above
ALL left in context, as originally written,
from late Thursday, March 9, 2000.
I previously forgot to point out my second quote
followed by MORON BOY's second quote,
which -- as he **clearly** makes known
is a repeat of the **SAME** thoughts he had just stated!!
But the FIRST quote half of these DOCUMENTED quotes is the
revelation which displays Lou Diamond's absurd stupidity.
He is simply too stupid to even understand these DOCUMENTED
FACTS about him. He'll probably even try to DENY it...
Thus, attempting to carry on a battle of WITS with Lou Diamond
is decidedly UNFAIR---LOU is unarmed!
WHATTA MORON!!!
Documented & VERIFIABLE via DEJA NEWS March 9, 2000
Br...@nospam.ca
>
> Colin Ferguson wrote:
>
> >You seemed to skip over the part where the guy that Gags on Stu's 1/4 inch
> >nob
> >has the same burden.
>
>
> Brian wrote:
>
> >> several different aliases, COWARD BOY!
>
>
> >Where's your proof?
>
> A Long Island Railroad Shooting Victim testified:
>
> I saw you point the gun at me, I saw you pull the trigger, I heard a loud
> "bang" and then I had a gunshot wound in my shoulder.
>
> Lou Diamond replied:
>
> >Where's your proof?
HC,
this post of Lou's which you are replying to here,
is the post whch contains the now DEJA NEWS DOCUMENTED quote:
>
> >
> > Amazing how much of a MORON you really are!!!
>
> Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
>
> >
> > Simpy breath-taking you are this stupid!!!
>
> Again with the same thoughts
Lou Diamond
> HCapper98 wrote:
> >
> > Colin Ferguson wrote:
> >
> > >You seemed to skip over the part where the guy that Gags on Stu's 1/4 inch
> > >nob
> > >has the same burden.
> >
> > How do you know so much about Stu's knob? Huh?
> >
> > Brian wrote:
> >
> > >> It is *YOU* who is known to post under
> > >> several different aliases, COWARD BOY!
> >
> > Colin replied:
> >
> > >Where's your proof?
> >
> > A Long Island Railroad Shooting Victim testified:
> >
> > I saw you point the gun at me, I saw you pull the trigger, I heard a loud
> > "bang" and then I had a gunshot wound in my shoulder.
> >
> > Lou Diamond replied:
> >
> > >Where's your proof?
> ============
>
> HC,
> this post of Lou's which you are replying to here,
> is the post whch contains the now DEJA NEWS DOCUMENTED quote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > Amazing how much of a MORON you really are!!!
> >
> > Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
> >
> > >
> > > Simpy breath-taking you are this stupid!!!
> >
> > Again with the same thoughts
>
> Documented & VERIFIABLE via DEJA NEWS March 9, 2000
Not even worth addressing....
But! what does THAT have to do with the fact that YOU fail to provide PROOF to
your FRAUDULENT claims? Keep spinning. LIAR
Lou Diamond
You still haven't posted any FACTS to support your claims below indeed
the archived
facts show otherwise...
I'm dizzy from your spinning. I'm bored of your 1st grade game of "You
said it first". I GAVE you my answer. If you don't like it FINE. That
was my answer. I'M STICKING WITH IT. C-A-N Y-O-U
U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D?. Now stop hiding and spinning. Just answer the
damn questions.
How do you know for a FACT that 95% of RGS doesn't like me? I mean,
specifics on
how you arrived at that number as FACT, as you so implied!!
You claimed that InstantOdds left out the fr in the name. It's a FACT
that they
didn't. A FACT that a pre-schooler can understand. Why do you insist
you did not
LIE when you said the fr was left out even though it is FACT that it
never belonged
there.
You admit yourself that Tom Gallagher CHEATED by NOT providing evidence
to support
his claim of errors in my database. You defended him saying he's not a
CHEATER.
That makes you a LIAR. What is you explanation for this LIE!
Simple. If you keep coming back with "I asked you first", it will on
PROVE to
Br...@nospam.ca
>
> I don't even read you anymore....... I GAVE you my answer.
> I'M STICKING WITH IT. C-A-N Y-O-U U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D?.
You gave "an" answer.
But an irrelevent answer is unacceptable, rather
the alleged PROOF of a complaint by me
(in regards to your site and my computer freezes)
C-A-N Y-O-U U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D???
Since it was this UNresolved issue which launched my involvement (Mar. 7)
it precludes all else until properly resolved.
One step at a time MORON BOY, and YOU are still stuck at
providing the alleged FACTS to support your initial LIE.
Nothing can proceed when the first step is STILL unresolved.
But I doubt that you can overcome it.
You have proven yourself to be a documented liar, illiterate,
.....AND entirely witless,
as evidenced by this DEJA DOCUMENTED original quote:
(Brian wrote):
> Amazing how much of a MORON you really are!!!
(MORON BOY's direct and *uncensored* reply):
> Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
A classic Fruedian slip?
Just toooooo funnny!!! LOL
Lou Diamond
> Lou Diamond wrote:
> >
> > Br...@nospam.ca wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > I don't even read you anymore....... I GAVE you my answer.
> > If you don't like it FINE. That was my answer.
> > I'M STICKING WITH IT. C-A-N Y-O-U U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D?.
> =========
>
> You gave "an" answer.
> But an irrelevent answer is unacceptable,
Only irrelevant to you and others that have been vocal against me PRIOR to
that. The is NO PROOF whatsoever that my answer IS irrelevant. Either way,
I do enjoy watching you squirm because YOU know YOU LIED and can't support
your claims. I don't NEED you to admit you're a LIAR. The FACTS have been
presented. You have been PROVEN to be a LIAR beyond ANY shadow of a doubt.
But I do see that Gags is attempting to use you "you said it first"
weaseling. pretty amusing, really.
> Nothing can proceed when the first step is STILL unresolved.
You mean you are now allowed to LIE until I answer to YOUR satisfaction. Who
sets these rules, HCapper?
>
>
> But I doubt that you can overcome it.
overcame.
>
> You have proven yourself to be a documented liar, illiterate,
> .....AND entirely witless,
> as evidenced by this DEJA DOCUMENTED original quote:
>
> (Brian wrote):
> > Amazing how much of a MORON you really are!!!
>
> (MORON BOY's direct and *uncensored* reply):
> > Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
>
> A classic Fruedian slip?
> Just toooooo funnny!!! LOL
Actually I WAS saying to myself...how stupid can I be thinking that this LIAR
would actually support his claims with documented verifiable evidence.
TJxontx
>Lou Diamond wrote:
>
> Br...@nospam.ca wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I don't even read you anymore....... I GAVE you my answer.
> If you don't like it FINE. That was my answer.
> I'M STICKING WITH IT. C-A-N Y-O-U U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D?.
>=========
>
>You gave "an" answer.
>the alleged PROOF of a complaint by me
>(in regards to your site and my computer freezes)
>C-A-N Y-O-U U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D???
>Since it was this UNresolved issue which launched my
>involvement (Mar. >7)
>it precludes all else until properly resolved.
>One step at a time MORON BOY, and YOU are still stuck at
>providing the alleged FACTS to support your initial LIE.
>
>
>.....AND entirely witless,
>as evidenced by this DEJA DOCUMENTED original quote:
>
>
>(Brian wrote):
> > Amazing how much of a MORON you really are!!!
>
>(MORON BOY's direct and *uncensored* reply):
> > Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
How come every time I check in here Lou Diamond is acting like a total asshole,
except this time Brian is helping the SPAM continue way beyond reason!!
Look Brian you made your points but theres no point continuing this on and on
ad infinitum!!! You to are FLAME-SPAMMING UP the entire newsgroup!! He is not
going to answer the lie you say started all this nonsense so I suggest you
refrain from responding until he does, which will be never. That will at least
cut the FLAME SPAM in half.
TJ
bushay
dontb...@noone.com
unacceptable. It's not as if they're any kind of support of diamond and they
need to win a flame war. Everyone seems to hate him equally . I realize the
guy is a pest but try not to stoop to his level. By replying multiple times
they're giving him exactly what he craves...Attention.
HCapper98
>Only irrelevant to you and others that have been vocal against me PRIOR to
>that.
Can you show us ONE person that has been vocal in FAVOR of you at ANY time?
Right.
>The FACTS have been
>presented.
They sure have, and you LOUse again fat boy.
>You mean you are now allowed to LIE until I answer to YOUR satisfaction. Who
>sets these rules, HCapper?
They were set by society, a long time before you were spawned and started
polluting the planet. No wonder you don't like the rules, you social misfit.
>overcame.
I'm sorry, what was that? Did you say overeat?
>Actually I WAS saying to myself...how stupid can I be thinking that this LIAR
>would actually support his claims with documented verifiable evidence.
You admit TALKING to yourself (oh brother), and while TALKING TO YOURSELF you
are asking yourself how stupid you are???
That's what you just said, no doubt that's NOT what you meant, but that's what
you said, you mutant.
You're a dummy.
Br...@nospam.ca
> except this time Brian is helping the SPAM continue way beyond reason!!
> Look Brian you made your points but theres no point continuing this on and on
> ad infinitum!!! You to are FLAME-SPAMMING UP the entire newsgroup!! He is not
> going to answer the lie you say started all this nonsense so I suggest you
> refrain from responding until he does, which will be never. That will at least
> cut the FLAME SPAM in half.
>
> TJ
OK. Makes sense to me. I'll follow your suggestion.
No further responses
(until he properly deals with his first lie, which will never happen)
He's just not coherent enough to deal with one issue at a time,
and has an obvious personal agenda spread by his continued LIES
to cover up his first LIES which he LIED about claiming others
were LYING after they found Lou LYING!
Lou Diamond
Lou Diamond
> Br...@nospam.ca wrote:
>
> > Lou Diamond wrote:
> >
> > > > So where's YOUR DOCUMENTED & verifiable evidence, LIAR BOY?
> > > > If indeed you have it...
> > >
> > > What the fuck NG are you reading? Gags stated that my database was FULL
> > > of errors. I provided that database here as *EVIDENCE" that it was
> > > not.
> > =====
> > No you didn't. You posted SOME items. That's it.
> > For all we know, Tom is right. There may have been errors
> > and you simply didn't show those. You PROVED nothing.
>
> It's there, in the same spot, PROVEN everyday.
>
> >
> >
> > Furthermore, you may have found errors and corrected them,
> > which of course does not mean Tom was wrong at the time,
> > nor can you post anything to PROVE his allegation false.
>
> When the NY Times makes a negative claim that will harm a business, the burden
> of proof is on them.
> Same holds true for Stu Feiner, as you'll see very shortly.
> Same holds truth for Tom Gallagher.
> Same holds true for all your aliases Brian/Josh/Max
> Same holds true for ANY business/person reporting claims that are harmful to
> the person being attacked.
>
> Is their a 1st grader in the house that can help this mentally challenged
> Brian/Max/Josh Anthony?
>
> >
> >
> > Just like a guy could be listed on his site as 57-49, then
> > lose 4 in a row....his update should read: 57-53....but alas
> > he posts on his site 59-51.....a guy complains that his website
> > is in ERROR....the offender quickly CORRECTS THE MISTAKES
> > then flames the complainant, calling him a LIAR, CHEAT and THIEF.
> > (that's an ILLUSTRATION)
> > But it makes a valid point.
> > It's impossible to prove NOW if Tom was right when he said so.
>
> So now you've branded him a LIAR for life. thanks for the help.
>
> >
> > But just like the illustration, it doesn't mean he wasn't...
>
> getting dizzy?
>
> > > Gag never proved his claim, retracted or apologized. Thus making
> > > him a liar a cheat and a thief. Just like *YOU*.
> > ======
> > Why should he if he was right *AT THE TIME* ??
> >
>
> He's made a claim with intent to harm another business in efforts to help
> his. He provided ABSOLUTELY no proof to back his claim.
> Let's illustrate.
> If someone makes a claim that he is hitting 53% over the last 100 games,
> *should they provide PROOF for that claim?
> -Or-
> would you say "why should he if he was right *AT THE TIME*?"
> -or-
> would you say, let's give a chance to prove it.
>
> You're an asshole and a hypocrite. My only hope is that you come back and say
> it's apples and oranges.
>
> >
> > And even *IF* he may have been mistaken, that is MAY HAVE,
> > this does not make him a thief, nor cheat.
>
> If he was honestly mistaken, he would have said "I looked at the data and I
> was mistaken." By not saying this or providing any proof, proves that his
> intent was to maliciously harm a competitors business with a blatant LIE in
> attempt to better himself.
>
> Providing NO PROOF to a slanderous claim is a blatant lie. He's is attempting
> to steal my client base by making that claim with no proof, making him a
> thief. Malicious slander IS considered cheating.
>
> >
> > However, for *YOU* to assert that, is a blatant LIE
> > making *YOU* a proven and documented LIAR.
> >
>
> Need that 1st grader for help with this one too.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Now, can you please show us where it says Instant fr Odds on the site?
> > > If you FAIL to do so, this will PROVE once again, you are the LIAR...
> > =====
> > Hellifyknow if it says instantfrodds *ON YOUR SITE* or not.
> > Never actually stated that it does.
>
> Well let's rephrase your lie. I make ALL final decisions for
> InstantOdds.com. I never authorized anyone or anybody to put fr in the middle
> of our name on ANY screen. For you to say, Instantodds keeps leaving the fr
> out of it's name, is a complete LIE. Therefore *YOU* should never be
> trusted. But most normal people *KNOW* that from your other hypocrisies.
Gallagher Sports
news:38C9ADC5...@instantodds.com...
Tom Gallagher: "Hey Lou, fix that database yet?"
Lou Diamond: "Absolutely NOT. There's NOTHING to fix. But I see you're
still a LYING STUpid Feiner loving piece of shit who can PROVE his
statements. "
Now that you have admitted that I CAN PROVE my statements, maybe we can be
friends (NOT).
--
Tom Gallagher
Gallagher Sports
http://tomgallagher.com
Watch Brian A Lie
Now Gags, who do you actually think is buying that you NOT a LIAR. And since
you CLAIM I am a LIAR, why all of the sudden is my word now good for this but
not anything else. Getting dizzy STUpid FeinerBoy?
HCapper98
>Now Gags, who do you actually think is buying that you NOT a LIAR.
I'll take two of 'em! I'm buying it. Tom's never lied to me, and I've never
seen him lie to RGS.
Lou Diamond is a DOCUMENTED LIAR.
HCapper98
>And since
>you CLAIM I am a LIAR, why all of the sudden is my word now good for this but
>not anything else. Getting dizzy STUpid FeinerBoy?
Dizzy? What else could one be while trying to unravel your convoluted logic?
I can only imagine how you stand up straight while your brain is working . . .
or is that why you walk hunched over like a FAT SMELLY GORILLA?