The article is optional; listen to Jimmy Rosenberg's guitar
HHW
drahcir
> http://whosenose.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-youve-got-one-of-those-deals...
still waiting, H...
HHW
But obviously not holding your breath near long enough.
danski...@gmail.com
Why should he hold his breath? Everyone knows you are a chicken-neck
asswipe.
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Mar-2009, danski...@gmail.com wrote:
& that's why HHW wants him to hold his breath for so
long - then HHW doesn't have to be afraid anymore...
Susan
danski...@gmail.com
I have yet to see any signs that watson is capable of growing up.
drahcir
H, if I thought you would eventually reply, I would hold my breath.
But everyone here knows YOU ARE FLED.
HHW
HHW
It's too bad you have neither the discipline to hold your breath nor
the wit to judge competently when an English phrase is worthy of
emphasis.
drahcir
The great pretender has time for silly, pretentious blahblah but not
for a reply.
You're obviously fled.
B. Cramer
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ea854dc-ec6a-4bcc...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
A brilliant reply was delivered by "H" you illiterate little girlieboi.
That it went straight over your pointy head is very obvious.
HHW
Pretentious? Naw. Not me. The readers will recall you offering to
escort various and sundry about the Harvard Yard.
>
> You're obviously fled.-
Indeed, to Patzcuaro. I write this beneath the stirring O`Gorman mural
in the former convent, now the public library. It´s a beautiful day,
there are things to do and I´m not wasting time on you. But in a few
days we`ll be back home and I´ll respond to your stupid, blundering
post. Adios.
drahcir
> On 5 mar, 07:56, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 12:38 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 9:19 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 1, 11:47 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 28, 11:21 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 28, 11:38 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >http://whosenose.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-youve-got-one-of-those-deals...
>
> > > > > > still waiting, H...
>
> > > > > >http://tinyurl.com/dytop6
>
> > > > > But obviously not holding your breath near long enough.
>
> > > > H, if I thought you would eventually reply, I would hold my breath.
> > > > But everyone here knows YOU ARE FLED.
>
> > > It's too bad you have neither the discipline to hold your breath nor
> > > the wit to judge competently when an English phrase is worthy of
> > > emphasis.
>
> > The great pretender has time for silly, pretentious blahblah but not
> > for a reply.
>
> Pretentious? Naw. Not me.
Get a grip.
The readers will recall you offering to
> escort various and sundry about the Harvard Yard.
Howsabout a cite - you can then prove your "point".
>
>
> > You're obviously fled.-
>
> Indeed, to Patzcuaro. I write this beneath the stirring O`Gorman mural
> in the former convent, now the public library. It´s a beautiful day,
> there are things to do and I´m not wasting time on you. But in a few
> days we`ll be back home and I´ll respond to your stupid, blundering
> post. Adios.
Still waiting...
HHW
Indeed, and while you wait sing your song:
Let's not beat around the bush,
No more nonsense.
We are the children of the cult.
We are its flesh and blood.
We have been raised in the fog
Ambiguous indeed,
Inside gigantomania
And scarcity of mind . . .
1967
drahcir
You've got time for crap, but not for a reply. You're fled.
HHW
> > We are the children of the cult.
> > We are its flesh and blood.
>
> > We have been raised in the fog
> > Ambiguous indeed,
> > Inside gigantomania
> > And scarcity of mind . . .
>
> > 1967
> You've got time for crap, but not for a reply.
I've all the time in the world. I've earned my leisure while you on
the other hand have not.
> You're fled.
From a closeted isolate in Somerville MA? Not likely. You haven't said
a word on the merits in the last year and you claim I'm "fled". Only
your filth speaks, Ratner.
drahcir
Why are you stalling?
>
> > You're fled.
>
> From a closeted isolate in Somerville MA? Not likely.
Are you serious? I have demonstrated your fleeing from me on numerous
occasions. I have even provided a post, sort of a Reader's Digest
summary of all the times you have fled from me. In fact, you flee from
anyone with facts and/or intellect. Did you ever ask yourself why that
is? Perhaps you did, but you're not bright enough to find the answer.
Here, let me help. You flee because you have adopted indefensible
points of view. You've adopted indefensible points of view for one
reason: you're an antisemite and have had to think and say the most
ridiculous things in order to preserve that one aspect of your
personality. Think of it, H - you have actually said in public that
mental defective posting as Ben Cramer has a keen intellect. What
sacrifices you must make for this one aspect of your being. Hey,
you're a big boy, it's your choice.
You haven't said
> a word on the merits in the last year and you claim I'm "fled".
I don't claim. It's a proven fact. It's so easy to make you flee. This
last time it's been doubly funny to hear you go on about how you'll
get back to me. You have all the time in the world to post your usual
mounds of meaningless crap, but somehow can't find the time to answer
one simple question. It's so obvious, H - you're fled.
Only
> your filth speaks, Ratner.
As is well-known, for you, filth = truth.
Still waiting....
HHW
Of course.
I have demonstrated your fleeing from me on numerous
> occasions.
That's completely untrue. I simply don't respond to everything you
post. You don't run the relationship.
I have even provided a post, sort of a Reader's Digest
> summary of all the times you have fled from me.
See above.
In fact, you flee from
> anyone with facts and/or intellect.
Spoken like the stupidly blundering idiot you've been proved to be
earlier today.
Did you ever ask yourself why that
> is?
It isn't so, no, I don't ask myself anything like that.
Perhaps you did, but you're not bright enough to find the answer.
> Here, let me help. You flee because you have adopted indefensible
> points of view.
And my indefensible points of view are? Be specific, now. We'll follow
this up. Don't slither away.
You've adopted indefensible points of view for one
> reason:
No, no, Ratner, first itemize my indefensible points of view. Then we
can go to your theories as to "why I've adopted them."
you're an antisemite and have had to think and say the most
> ridiculous things in order to preserve that one aspect of your
> personality.
First you fail to itemize and demonstrate my allegedly "indefensible
points of view." Then you conclude, without arguments or facts, that I
am an anti-Semite. Perhaps if we give you a little time to think, your
debate brilliance will surface for the first time. But you're going to
have to go way beyond Deborah to accomplish it. You'll need a talent
for synthesis you have never demonstrated. Anyway, you know that's not
your style. You do nothing whatever but attack the messenger just as
you continue doing here. You know you will look ridiculous as soon as
you begin any legitimate debate activity opposite me. You haven't the
guts to expose yourself, to give me a handle to beat you with. I've
addressed this pattern in your behavior in another post earlier this
afternoon so I won't repeat it here.
Think of it, H - you have actually said in public that
> mental defective posting as Ben Cramer has a keen intellect.
Haha. Here's your logic.
P. 1: Miss Ratner states that anti-Semites are "mental defectives."
P. 2: Ben Cramer acknowledges that he is an anti-Semite.
THEREFORE, the readership must conclude Ben Cramer is a mental
defective in addition to being an anti-Semite.
Focus now. What's wrong with this proof? Irrespective of the truth of
the matter which you never seek anyway, your formulation is defective.
Can you tell us why?
What
> sacrifices you must make for this one aspect of your being. Hey,
> you're a big boy, it's your choice.
Well yes I am and yes it is. Is Missy Ratner a big boy? Can she face,
for example, her obligations to her country?
As to Mr.Cramer, the fact that he is an anti-Semite is a matter in
which I have very little interest. It's his business and maybe yours,
but I have no dog in that fight. From the vantage of SCJ actual anti-
Semitism seems at times to be ubiquitous, but has only a little and
only indidrectly to do with the reasons I'm here. I'm here because of
the mess Israel and her American lobby have gotten us into in the
Middle East. Unlike you, I oppose the supine and toxic nature of our
relationship with israel. I'm interested in the long term best
interests of my native country.
>
> You haven't said
>
> > a word on the merits in the last year and you claim I'm "fled".
>
> I don't claim.
You assert?
It's a proven fact.
Ha. You do lie a lot, Ratner. This forum, like it or not, is largely
about Israeli aggression and war crimes and the situation the US is in
related to them. They are what I'm interested in. I don't give a damn
about Ben Cramer's anti-Semitism. If you need a Goy to help you there
you've got DoD. You on the other hand are here solely to interfere
with conversations of that sort. The last thing you will do willingly
is to address the merits of those sorts of issues. In the first place
you're not good at it but it's mostly because you understand that
Israel is on the losing side of the argument for a multitude of
reasons. Would you like to go through them?
It's so easy to make you flee. This
> last time it's been doubly funny to hear you go on about how you'll
> get back to me.
Oh, I certainly, absolutely certainly will, but not on anything
resembling your schedule. Please do keep sending the url.
You have all the time in the world to post your usual
> mounds of meaningless crap, but somehow can't find the time to answer
> one simple question. It's so obvious, H - you're fled.
Whatever you say, but the post in question was a stupidly blundering
move on your part. Don't forget now. Keep reminding me.
>
> Only
>
> > your filth speaks, Ratner.
>
> As is well-known, for you, filth = truth.
Have you read "The Holocaust Industry?"
>
> Still waiting....
drahcir
OK, H, I have enough of your silly games. Here's the deal: I can cite
threads from which you have fled, and posts that enumerate those
threads. You know it as well as anyone. But you have denied it above.
Therefore, I will challenge you in the following way: if what I have
said in this paragraph can be disrproven, I will leave this SCI and
SCJ forever. However, if it can be proven, you will leave this SCI and
SCJ forever. Do you accept this challenge? If you do not accept, you
obviously were lying when you said above "that's completely untrue."
The ball's in your court.
I simply don't respond to everything you
> post. You don't run the relationship.
You have the choice to make, H. What's it going to be?
>
> I have even provided a post, sort of a Reader's Digest
>
> > summary of all the times you have fled from me.
>
> See above.
>
> In fact, you flee from
>
> > anyone with facts and/or intellect.
>
> Spoken like the stupidly blundering idiot you've been proved to be
> earlier today.
Either you're hallucinating or I have a severe memory problem. Why
don't you cite precisely where I blundered? Do it or you are again a
liar.
>
> Did you ever ask yourself why that
>
> > is?
>
> It isn't so, no, I don't ask myself anything like that.
You have the challenge, it's your call.
>
> Perhaps you did, but you're not bright enough to find the answer.
>
> > Here, let me help. You flee because you have adopted indefensible
> > points of view.
>
> And my indefensible points of view are? Be specific, now. We'll follow
> this up. Don't slither away.
LOL! Start with M&W and your inability to answer the innumerable
points in the negative reviews that have been posted. Supplant that
with the same for Pappe. Supplant that with Sand, and your
unforgettable, alzheimic accusation of plagiarism against me, all
because you got confused and, as usual, were then embarrassed to admit
it. Then, of course, there was the superbly hilarious ordeal with your
idiotic syllogism and absurd definition of same. And who could forget
the Tom Ashbrook shtick, that which you fled from originally and then,
again in the recent past. The list goes on and on. Anyone is free to
look up any conversation in Advanced Google search between HHW and
drahcir (or more recently, yousaybeus). Use tree view and see where
HHW has dropped out - it's ALWAYS with good reason. The same goes for
conversations between Deb Sharavi and HHW. You trying to deny these
things is simply illustrative of how out of touch with reality you
are.
>
> You've adopted indefensible points of view for one
>
> > reason:
>
> No, no, Ratner, first itemize my indefensible points of view. Then we
> can go to your theories as to "why I've adopted them."
See above. You can start with enumerating the three terms of your
"syllogism", then you can follow with the three terms of your non-
syllogism. Still waiting.....
>
> you're an antisemite and have had to think and say the most
>
> > ridiculous things in order to preserve that one aspect of your
> > personality.
>
> First you fail to itemize and demonstrate my allegedly "indefensible
> points of view." Then you conclude, without arguments or facts, that I
> am an anti-Semite. Perhaps if we give you a little time to think, your
> debate brilliance will surface for the first time. But you're going to
> have to go way beyond Deborah to accomplish it. You'll need a talent
> for synthesis you have never demonstrated. Anyway, you know that's not
> your style. You do nothing whatever but attack the messenger just as
> you continue doing here. You know you will look ridiculous as soon as
> you begin any legitimate debate activity opposite me. You haven't the
> guts to expose yourself, to give me a handle to beat you with. I've
> addressed this pattern in your behavior in another post earlier this
> afternoon so I won't repeat it here.
Above blahblah skimmed and ignored.
> Think of it, H - you have actually said in public that
>
> > mental defective posting as Ben Cramer has a keen intellect.
>
> Haha. Here's your logic.
>
> P. 1: Miss Ratner states that anti-Semites are "mental defectives."
>
> P. 2: Ben Cramer acknowledges that he is an anti-Semite.
>
> THEREFORE, the readership must conclude Ben Cramer is a mental
> defective in addition to being an anti-Semite.
HHW is like a little kid who tries to avoid responsibility for an
error by purposefully committing the error again, as if to say "there,
see, I don't care if I'm wrong!". What a silly child you are, H. When
you provide the three terms cited in your original definition of
"syllogism", we can talk. Until then, you've not only fled, but you've
also doubly embarrassed yourself with idiotic attempts like the above.
> Focus now. What's wrong with this proof? Irrespective of the truth of
> the matter which you never seek anyway, your formulation is defective.
> Can you tell us why?
I suggest you look it up in Encyclopedia Britannica, the fave of high
schoolers, and apparently, of you, too. You have shown yourself to be
such a silly, incompetent child regarding issues of logic and I have
so thoroughly, absolutely, and completely trounced you in such matters
that for you to even ask a question such as the above is indicative,
once again, only of how out of touch you are.
> What
>
> > sacrifices you must make for this one aspect of your being. Hey,
> > you're a big boy, it's your choice.
>
> Well yes I am and yes it is. Is Missy Ratner a big boy? Can she face,
> for example, her obligations to her country?
>
> As to Mr.Cramer, the fact that he is an anti-Semite is a matter in
> which I have very little interest. It's his business and maybe yours,
> but I have no dog in that fight. From the vantage of SCJ actual anti-
> Semitism seems at times to be ubiquitous, but has only a little and
> only indidrectly to do with the reasons I'm here. I'm here because of
> the mess Israel and her American lobby have gotten us into in the
> Middle East. Unlike you, I oppose the supine and toxic nature of our
> relationship with israel. I'm interested in the long term best
> interests of my native country.
Ridiculous backpedaling re cramer above skimmed and ignored;
>
>
>
> > You haven't said
>
> > > a word on the merits in the last year and you claim I'm "fled".
>
> > I don't claim.
>
> You assert?
>
> It's a proven fact.
>
> Ha. You do lie a lot, Ratner.
That's a lie. Again. I challenge you to cite one lie I have EVER
posted here. If you succeed, I will leave forever. Will you accept
this as well as the reverse? WILL YOU?
This forum, like it or not, is largely
> about Israeli aggression and war crimes and the situation the US is in
> related to them. They are what I'm interested in. I don't give a damn
> about Ben Cramer's anti-Semitism. If you need a Goy to help you there
> you've got DoD. You on the other hand are here solely to interfere
> with conversations of that sort. The last thing you will do willingly
> is to address the merits of those sorts of issues. In the first place
> you're not good at it but it's mostly because you understand that
> Israel is on the losing side of the argument for a multitude of
> reasons. Would you like to go through them?
Meandering crap above skimmed and ignored.
> It's so easy to make you flee. This
>
> > last time it's been doubly funny to hear you go on about how you'll
> > get back to me.
>
> Oh, I certainly, absolutely certainly will, but not on anything
> resembling your schedule. Please do keep sending the url.
>
> You have all the time in the world to post your usual
>
> > mounds of meaningless crap, but somehow can't find the time to answer
> > one simple question. It's so obvious, H - you're fled.
>
> Whatever you say, but the post in question was a stupidly blundering
> move on your part. Don't forget now. Keep reminding me.
>
Still waiting...
danski...@gmail.com
The same answer he has given you before.
HHW
No deals, Ratner.
I can cite
> threads from which you have fled, and posts that enumerate those
> threads. You know it as well as anyone. But you have denied it above.
> Therefore, I will challenge you in the following way: if what I have
> said in this paragraph can be disrproven, I will leave this SCI and
> SCJ forever. However, if it can be proven, you will leave this SCI and
> SCJ forever. Do you accept this challenge? If you do not accept, you
> obviously were lying when you said above "that's completely untrue."
> The ball's in your court.
>
> I simply don't respond to everything you
>
> > post. You don't run the relationship.
>
> You have the choice to make, H. What's it going to be?
I told you, no deals.
>
>
>
> > I have even provided a post, sort of a Reader's Digest
>
> > > summary of all the times you have fled from me.
>
> > See above.
>
> > In fact, you flee from
>
> > > anyone with facts and/or intellect.
>
> > Spoken like the stupidly blundering idiot you've been proved to be
> > earlier today.
>
> Either you're hallucinating or I have a severe memory problem. Why
> don't you cite precisely where I blundered? Do it or you are again a
> liar.
Just look at my posts of today or you are again a liar.
>
>
>
> > Did you ever ask yourself why that
>
> > > is?
>
> > It isn't so, no, I don't ask myself anything like that.
>
> You have the challenge, it's your call.
No deals. That's my call.
>
>
>
> > Perhaps you did, but you're not bright enough to find the answer.
>
> > > Here, let me help. You flee because you have adopted indefensible
> > > points of view.
>
> > And my indefensible points of view are? Be specific, now. We'll follow
> > this up. Don't slither away.
>
> LOL! Start with M&W and your inability to answer the innumerable
> points in the negative reviews that have been posted.
Fool, what were my indefensible points of view regarding M & W? You
claim them so name them.
Supplant that
> with the same for Pappe.
Name my indefensible points of view re Pappe's history. I can't wait
for this. You haven't read it.
Supplant that with Sand,
What are my indefensible points of view about Sand's book. Name them.
State them in the form of propositions.
and your
> unforgettable, alzheimic accusation of plagiarism against me, all
> because you got confused and, as usual, were then embarrassed to admit
> it.
The plagiarism was clear as crystal. What, specifically, was my
indefensible posltion? You claim them so state them, identify them.
You didn't prevail in a single one of those debates.
Then, of course, there was the superbly hilarious ordeal with your
> idiotic syllogism and absurd definition of same.
You were marginally saved at the end of that thread because I pasted
in a poorly drafted definition. But by that time you had been
thoroughly whipped in about twenty posts. In fact you have a little
lesson pending in that field.
And who could forget
> the Tom Ashbrook shtick, that which you fled from originally and then,
> again in the recent past. The list goes on and on.
No it doesn't. You get your ass kicked and post-facto claim victory.
Go ahead, lay out HERE my indefensible position re Ashbrook.
Anyone is free to
> look up any conversation in Advanced Google search between HHW and
> drahcir (or more recently, yousaybeus).
So you lied about Yousaybeus and now admit that you are he or she or
whatever. You have no shame.
Use tree view and see where
> HHW has dropped out - it's ALWAYS with good reason. The same goes for
> conversations between Deb Sharavi and HHW. You trying to deny these
> things is simply illustrative of how out of touch with reality you
> are.
Name the indefensible POSITIONS, lay them out. All you do here is
mention debates we've had. You haven't spelled out a single
"indefensible position". You made the claim but have yet to deliver.
>
>
>
> > You've adopted indefensible points of view for one
>
> > > reason:
>
> > No, no, Ratner, first itemize my indefensible points of view. Then we
> > can go to your theories as to "why I've adopted them."
>
> See above. You can start with enumerating the three terms of your
> "syllogism", then you can follow with the three terms of your non-
> syllogism. Still waiting.....
So it all boils down to the pasting in of a defective definition of a
syllogism? That's all you can recall?
>
>
>
> > you're an antisemite and have had to think and say the most
>
> > > ridiculous things in order to preserve that one aspect of your
> > > personality.
>
> > First you fail to itemize and demonstrate my allegedly "indefensible
> > points of view." Then you conclude, without arguments or facts, that I
> > am an anti-Semite. Perhaps if we give you a little time to think, your
> > debate brilliance will surface for the first time. But you're going to
> > have to go way beyond Deborah to accomplish it. You'll need a talent
> > for synthesis you have never demonstrated. Anyway, you know that's not
> > your style. You do nothing whatever but attack the messenger just as
> > you continue doing here. You know you will look ridiculous as soon as
> > you begin any legitimate debate activity opposite me. You haven't the
> > guts to expose yourself, to give me a handle to beat you with. I've
> > addressed this pattern in your behavior in another post earlier this
> > afternoon so I won't repeat it here.
>
> Above blahblah skimmed and ignored.
You can't respond.
>
> > Think of it, H - you have actually said in public that
>
> > > mental defective posting as Ben Cramer has a keen intellect.
>
> > Haha. Here's your logic.
>
> > P. 1: Miss Ratner states that anti-Semites are "mental defectives."
>
> > P. 2: Ben Cramer acknowledges that he is an anti-Semite.
>
> > THEREFORE, the readership must conclude Ben Cramer is a mental
> > defective in addition to being an anti-Semite.
>
> HHW is like a little kid who tries to avoid responsibility for an
> error by purposefully committing the error again, as if to say "there,
> see, I don't care if I'm wrong!".
There has been no error whatever on my part regarding Ben Cramer. You
can't describe it. You can't articulate it. You only rely on what you
used to presume would be nearly everyone's fear of being LABELED.
Labeling is described in the Hasbara Manual. It is an intellectually
dishonest technique. You use it every day. Go ahead, lay out an
indefensible position I have taken in regard to Ben Cramer.
What a silly child you are, H. When
> you provide the three terms cited in your original definition of
> "syllogism", we can talk. Until then, you've not only fled, but you've
> also doubly embarrassed yourself with idiotic attempts like the above.
After listing all of these debates and beating your breast about
indefensible positions you can't name a single which relates to
America's Israel policy or the lobby? You are an astounding fraud,
Ratner.
>
> > Focus now. What's wrong with this proof? Irrespective of the truth of
> > the matter which you never seek anyway, your formulation is defective.
> > Can you tell us why?
>
> I suggest you look it up in Encyclopedia Britannica, the fave of high
> schoolers, and apparently, of you, too.
No, no. The answer is not in Encyclopedia Britannica. Come on, now.
What's wrong with the proof I drafted for your scrutiny? You don't
dare address it. You fear a trap.
You have shown yourself to be
> such a silly, incompetent child regarding issues of logic and I have
> so thoroughly, absolutely, and completely trounced you in such matters
> that for you to even ask a question such as the above is indicative,
> once again, only of how out of touch you are.
Lay out the indefensible positions I've allegedly taken in those
threads. You're simply lying. I'm calling your bluff. Lay them out
here and give us the specific, relevant posts involved.
>
> > What
>
> > > sacrifices you must make for this one aspect of your being. Hey,
> > > you're a big boy, it's your choice.
>
> > Well yes I am and yes it is. Is Missy Ratner a big boy? Can she face,
> > for example, her obligations to her country?
>
> > As to Mr.Cramer, the fact that he is an anti-Semite is a matter in
> > which I have very little interest. It's his business and maybe yours,
> > but I have no dog in that fight. From the vantage of SCJ actual anti-
> > Semitism seems at times to be ubiquitous, but has only a little and
> > only indidrectly to do with the reasons I'm here. I'm here because of
> > the mess Israel and her American lobby have gotten us into in the
> > Middle East. Unlike you, I oppose the supine and toxic nature of our
> > relationship with israel. I'm interested in the long term best
> > interests of my native country.
>
> Ridiculous backpedaling re cramer above skimmed and ignored;
What backpedaling? Do I think he is bright? Damned right I do. Do I
think he's a mental defective? Hell no and neither do you. That
doesn't mean that I support his anti-Semitism any more than you do.
Guess what, Ratner. I'm not interested in anti-Semitism. I'm
interested in foreign policy. Can you parse that?
>
>
>
> > > You haven't said
>
> > > > a word on the merits in the last year and you claim I'm "fled".
>
> > > I don't claim.
>
> > You assert?
>
> > It's a proven fact.
>
> > Ha. You do lie a lot, Ratner.
>
> That's a lie. Again. I challenge you to cite one lie I have EVER
> posted here. If you succeed, I will leave forever. Will you accept
> this as well as the reverse? WILL YOU?
I don't want you to leave. Why should I? And I'm certainly not going
to do so. Remember that message the Palestinians had me deliver to
you.
Go back over this post. Every time I demand from you specific evidence
of an "indefensible position" I'm supposed to have taken opposite you
on a given subject and you do not deliver--and never have delivered--
there has been deceit on your part. You manufacture victories which
never took place. You manufacture "indefensible positions". And
remember, Ratner, that I'm here on questions of israeli and American
policy. You have almost never had the guts to address such issues. You
focus almost exclusively on trivia.
>
> This forum, like it or not, is largely
>
> > about Israeli aggression and war crimes and the situation the US is in
> > related to them. They are what I'm interested in. I don't give a damn
> > about Ben Cramer's anti-Semitism. If you need a Goy to help you there
> > you've got DoD. You on the other hand are here solely to interfere
> > with conversations of that sort. The last thing you will do willingly
> > is to address the merits of those sorts of issues. In the first place
> > you're not good at it but it's mostly because you understand that
> > Israel is on the losing side of the argument for a multitude of
> > reasons. Would you like to go through them?
>
> Meandering crap above skimmed and ignored.
It was a direct challenge.
> > It's so easy to make you flee. This
>
> > > last time it's been doubly funny to hear you go on about how you'll
> > > get back to me.
>
> > Oh, I certainly, absolutely certainly will, but not on anything
> > resembling your schedule. Please do keep sending the url.
>
> > You have all the time in the world to post your usual
>
> > > mounds of meaningless crap, but somehow can't find the time to answer
> > > one simple question. It's so obvious, H - you're fled.
>
> > Whatever you say, but the post in question was a stupidly blundering
> > move on your part. Don't forget now. Keep reminding me.
>
> Still waiting...
>
> > > Only
>
> > > > your filth speaks, Ratner.
>
> > > As is well-known, for you, filth = truth.
>
> > Have you read "The Holocaust Industry?"
>
> > > Still waiting....
It's "The Holocause Industry" by Norman G. Finkelstein. It's sorta
like the Madoff Saga.
HHW
I have time for a poet who has sumed up the history of modern Zionism
in six lines. Read it again. Everyone should read it.
danski...@gmail.com
> On Mar 10, 8:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No deals, Ratner.
Why did you even post this? We all know you are a wussy...
drahcir
<snip>
>
> > > I have demonstrated your fleeing from me on numerous
>
> > > > occasions.
>
> > > That's completely untrue.
>
> > OK, H, I have enough of your silly games. Here's the deal:
>
> No deals, Ratner.
No one here expected a lowly coward like you to accept a deal, H.
You're much too scared to do so. Everyone can therefore interpret your
above "that's completely untrue" as a lie.
>
> I can cite
>
> > threads from which you have fled, and posts that enumerate those
> > threads. You know it as well as anyone. But you have denied it above.
> > Therefore, I will challenge you in the following way: if what I have
> > said in this paragraph can be disrproven, I will leave this SCI and
> > SCJ forever. However, if it can be proven, you will leave this SCI and
> > SCJ forever. Do you accept this challenge? If you do not accept, you
> > obviously were lying when you said above "that's completely untrue."
> > The ball's in your court.
>
> > I simply don't respond to everything you
>
> > > post. You don't run the relationship.
>
> > You have the choice to make, H. What's it going to be?
>
> I told you, no deals.
Yes you did, Perfectly predictable. The reason is obvious.
>
>
>
> > > I have even provided a post, sort of a Reader's Digest
>
> > > > summary of all the times you have fled from me.
>
> > > See above.
>
> > > In fact, you flee from
>
> > > > anyone with facts and/or intellect.
>
> > > Spoken like the stupidly blundering idiot you've been proved to be
> > > earlier today.
>
> > Either you're hallucinating or I have a severe memory problem. Why
> > don't you cite precisely where I blundered? Do it or you are again a
> > liar.
>
> Just look at my posts of today or you are again a liar.
Nope, that's a fake. Cite a specific lie I have EVER posted here. You
won't escape with the above nonsense.
>
>
>
> > > Did you ever ask yourself why that
>
> > > > is?
>
> > > It isn't so, no, I don't ask myself anything like that.
>
> > You have the challenge, it's your call.
>
> No deals. That's my call.
>
Of course it is. A PROVEN lying coward like you has no choice.
>
> > > Perhaps you did, but you're not bright enough to find the answer.
>
> > > > Here, let me help. You flee because you have adopted indefensible
> > > > points of view.
>
> > > And my indefensible points of view are? Be specific, now. We'll follow
> > > this up. Don't slither away.
>
> > LOL! Start with M&W and your inability to answer the innumerable
> > points in the negative reviews that have been posted.
>
> Fool, what were my indefensible points of view regarding M & W? You
> claim them so name them.
Why don't we start with the single point that got you into so much
trouble - M's blunder with Tom Ashbrook? Each time it has been brought
up by me, you have avoided confronting the obvious contradiction M
committed. To review, readers can go here:
The nice part about that post is that it reveals one of the many times
HHW has lied here (regarding transcripts - a real "gotcha"), as well
as presents a point that he has be confronted by on numerous occasions
(one need only do an advanced Google search with me as author,
containing the word Ashbrook to see how many) and always gone into
HHWbabble mode to avoid.
>
> Supplant that
>
> > with the same for Pappe.
>
> Name my indefensible points of view re Pappe's history. I can't wait
> for this. You haven't read it.
Simple: Here's a post you fled from - no doubt, not one shred:
>
> Supplant that with Sand,
>
> What are my indefensible points of view about Sand's book. Name them.
> State them in the form of propositions.
This grows tiresome. Anyone is free to do a google with me as author,
containing the word Sand. Does your alzheimic brain forget that I
destroyed sand's khazar theory with DNA data?
>
> and your
>
> > unforgettable, alzheimic accusation of plagiarism against me, all
> > because you got confused and, as usual, were then embarrassed to admit
> > it.
>
> The plagiarism was clear as crystal.
You NEVER cited it, not once. Your "clear as crystal" is just one more
HHW lie, trying to mask one more HHW screwup.
What, specifically, was my
> indefensible posltion? You claim them so state them, identify them.
Stop your redundant, stupid repetition, moron.
> You didn't prevail in a single one of those debates.
>
> Then, of course, there was the superbly hilarious ordeal with your
>
> > idiotic syllogism and absurd definition of same.
>
> You were marginally saved at the end of that thread because I pasted
> in a poorly drafted definition. But by that time you had been
> thoroughly whipped in about twenty posts. In fact you have a little
> lesson pending in that field.
BWAHAHAHA!!! Anyone is free to read the thread here:
H started it by posting some nonsense by someone named Feiglin. When I
disproved the premises that Feiglin used to draw his conclusion,
believe it or not, H started going on about how his conclusion was
logically derived from his premises, therefore the fact that his
premises were false was irrelevant!! He then went on in the most
pretentious way for thousands of words, talking about deduction,
culminating in a definition of "syllogism" he pulled from ENCYCLOPEDIA
BRITANNICA that made NO SENSE!!! This is really funny - anyone with
time on his hands should give it a read.
>
> And who could forget
>
> > the Tom Ashbrook shtick, that which you fled from originally and then,
> > again in the recent past. The list goes on and on.
>
> No it doesn't. You get your ass kicked and post-facto claim victory.
I AM THE ONE who provides cites, you buffoon. The reason for that is
clear.
> Go ahead, lay out HERE my indefensible position re Ashbrook.
See above.
>
> Anyone is free to
>
> > look up any conversation in Advanced Google search between HHW and
> > drahcir (or more recently, yousaybeus).
>
> So you lied about Yousaybeus
Where, H? Please cite the lie with a URL.
and now admit that you are he or she or
> whatever. You have no shame.
Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. Do you think no one here has read my
numerous notifications about "yousaybeus". You are such a child that
you pretend reality is the way you want it to be, not the way it is.
>
> Use tree view and see where
>
> > HHW has dropped out - it's ALWAYS with good reason. The same goes for
> > conversations between Deb Sharavi and HHW. You trying to deny these
> > things is simply illustrative of how out of touch with reality you
> > are.
>
> Name the indefensible POSITIONS, lay them out.
H, try to understand. You can make a request in a post ONCE. Then it
will be dealt with in the reply, unless you are the replier, of
course, in which case there is a better than even chance that you will
simply flee.
All you do here is
> mention debates we've had. You haven't spelled out a single
> "indefensible position". You made the claim but have yet to deliver.
Can anyone believe this idiot?
>
>
> > > You've adopted indefensible points of view for one
>
> > > > reason:
>
> > > No, no, Ratner, first itemize my indefensible points of view. Then we
> > > can go to your theories as to "why I've adopted them."
>
> > See above. You can start with enumerating the three terms of your
> > "syllogism", then you can follow with the three terms of your non-
> > syllogism. Still waiting.....
>
> So it all boils down to the pasting in of a defective definition of a
> syllogism? That's all you can recall?
See above. That's FAR from all, but it's caused YOU to flee from
innumerable posts. All you had to say, after so many times that I
asked you for the three terms, was to say, sorry, I didn't post a good
definition, just like you are doing above. But you DIDN'T. You did
your usual lies and fleeing.
> > > you're an antisemite and have had to think and say the most
>
> > > > ridiculous things in order to preserve that one aspect of your
> > > > personality.
>
> > > First you fail to itemize and demonstrate my allegedly "indefensible
> > > points of view." Then you conclude, without arguments or facts, that I
> > > am an anti-Semite. Perhaps if we give you a little time to think, your
> > > debate brilliance will surface for the first time. But you're going to
> > > have to go way beyond Deborah to accomplish it. You'll need a talent
> > > for synthesis you have never demonstrated. Anyway, you know that's not
> > > your style. You do nothing whatever but attack the messenger just as
> > > you continue doing here. You know you will look ridiculous as soon as
> > > you begin any legitimate debate activity opposite me. You haven't the
> > > guts to expose yourself, to give me a handle to beat you with. I've
> > > addressed this pattern in your behavior in another post earlier this
> > > afternoon so I won't repeat it here.
>
> > Above blahblah skimmed and ignored.
>
> You can't respond.
>
Whatever you say, H.
>
> > > Think of it, H - you have actually said in public that
>
> > > > mental defective posting as Ben Cramer has a keen intellect.
>
> > > Haha. Here's your logic.
>
> > > P. 1: Miss Ratner states that anti-Semites are "mental defectives."
>
> > > P. 2: Ben Cramer acknowledges that he is an anti-Semite.
>
> > > THEREFORE, the readership must conclude Ben Cramer is a mental
> > > defective in addition to being an anti-Semite.
>
> > HHW is like a little kid who tries to avoid responsibility for an
> > error by purposefully committing the error again, as if to say "there,
> > see, I don't care if I'm wrong!".
>
> There has been no error whatever on my part regarding Ben Cramer. You
> can't describe it. You can't articulate it. You only rely on what you
> used to presume would be nearly everyone's fear of being LABELED.
> Labeling is described in the Hasbara Manual. It is an intellectually
> dishonest technique. You use it every day. Go ahead, lay out an
> indefensible position I have taken in regard to Ben Cramer.
You said Ben's intellect was great. You want to now muddy it up but
that's what you said. It proves more than almost anything else that
you are an idiot.
> What a silly child you are, H. When
>
> > you provide the three terms cited in your original definition of
> > "syllogism", we can talk. Until then, you've not only fled, but you've
> > also doubly embarrassed yourself with idiotic attempts like the above.
>
> After listing all of these debates and beating your breast about
> indefensible positions you can't name a single which relates to
> America's Israel policy or the lobby? You are an astounding fraud,
> Ratner.
>
Unbelievable.
>
> > > Focus now. What's wrong with this proof? Irrespective of the truth of
> > > the matter which you never seek anyway, your formulation is defective.
> > > Can you tell us why?
>
> > I suggest you look it up in Encyclopedia Britannica, the fave of high
> > schoolers, and apparently, of you, too.
>
> No, no. The answer is not in Encyclopedia Britannica.
Do you deny that your silly definition of "syllogism" came from
Encylopedia Britannica?
Come on, now.
> What's wrong with the proof I drafted for your scrutiny? You don't
> dare address it. You fear a trap.
I provided the link for the entertainment of readers.
> You have shown yourself to be
>
> > such a silly, incompetent child regarding issues of logic and I have
> > so thoroughly, absolutely, and completely trounced you in such matters
> > that for you to even ask a question such as the above is indicative,
> > once again, only of how out of touch you are.
>
> Lay out the indefensible positions I've allegedly taken in those
> threads. You're simply lying. I'm calling your bluff. Lay them out
> here and give us the specific, relevant posts involved.
>
Can anyone believe this moron?
>
>
> > > What
>
> > > > sacrifices you must make for this one aspect of your being. Hey,
> > > > you're a big boy, it's your choice.
>
> > > Well yes I am and yes it is. Is Missy Ratner a big boy? Can she face,
> > > for example, her obligations to her country?
>
> > > As to Mr.Cramer, the fact that he is an anti-Semite is a matter in
> > > which I have very little interest. It's his business and maybe yours,
> > > but I have no dog in that fight. From the vantage of SCJ actual anti-
> > > Semitism seems at times to be ubiquitous, but has only a little and
> > > only indidrectly to do with the reasons I'm here. I'm here because of
> > > the mess Israel and her American lobby have gotten us into in the
> > > Middle East. Unlike you, I oppose the supine and toxic nature of our
> > > relationship with israel. I'm interested in the long term best
> > > interests of my native country.
>
> > Ridiculous backpedaling re cramer above skimmed and ignored;
>
> What backpedaling? Do I think he is bright? Damned right I do.
LOL! He thinks if he stands by his absurdity that that validates it.
Do I
> think he's a mental defective? Hell no and neither do you. That
> doesn't mean that I support his anti-Semitism any more than you do.
>
> Guess what, Ratner. I'm not interested in anti-Semitism. I'm
> interested in foreign policy. Can you parse that?
I can parse it, and I can understand it as a lie.
> > > > You haven't said
>
> > > > > a word on the merits in the last year and you claim I'm "fled".
>
> > > > I don't claim.
>
> > > You assert?
>
> > > It's a proven fact.
>
> > > Ha. You do lie a lot, Ratner.
>
> > That's a lie. Again. I challenge you to cite one lie I have EVER
> > posted here. If you succeed, I will leave forever. Will you accept
> > this as well as the reverse? WILL YOU?
>
> I don't want you to leave. Why should I? And I'm certainly not going
> to do so. Remember that message the Palestinians had me deliver to
> you.
>
> Go back over this post. Every time I demand from you specific evidence
> of an "indefensible position" I'm supposed to have taken opposite you
> on a given subject and you do not deliver--and never have delivered--
> there has been deceit on your part. You manufacture victories which
> never took place. You manufacture "indefensible positions". And
> remember, Ratner, that I'm here on questions of israeli and American
> policy. You have almost never had the guts to address such issues. You
> focus almost exclusively on trivia.
>
Apparently the alzheimers does not allow H to perceive that a reply is
necessary to answer questions in a post.
Can't trust those jews, eh?
drahcir
You have time for lots of stuff. But not for a reply.
You're fled.
>
>
>
drahcir
>
> > > Ha. You do lie a lot, Ratner.
>
> > That's a lie. Again. I challenge you to cite one lie I have EVER
> > posted here. If you succeed, I will leave forever. Will you accept
> > this as well as the reverse? WILL YOU?
>
> I don't want you to leave. Why should I? And I'm certainly not going
> to do so. Remember that message the Palestinians had me deliver to
> you.
Ooops, forgot something (sorry - was in phone conversation while
replying)
The above is simply proof that HHW cannot cite one lie of mine,
therefore lied when he said that "I do lie a lot".
<snip>
HHW
Susan, you're Irish. The Irish do drink some but they're well regarded
for personal honesty. Does that not strike a chord in you?
HHW
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > > > Ha. You do lie a lot, Ratner.
>
> > > That's a lie. Again. I challenge you to cite one lie I have EVER
> > > posted here. If you succeed, I will leave forever. Will you accept
> > > this as well as the reverse? WILL YOU?
I'm not leaving. And you can't be trusted. No deals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust#Goethe.27s_Faust
HHW
1. You LIED in saying that Google was mistaken in attributing the
posts of Yousaybeus to you. You have now admitted that you are
Yousaybeus. That is a classical and unambiguous example of lying. I
firmly believe you have followed type by denying you are Count 1, but
that's not worth the struggle as it is not on my subjects. I will
treat it as a lie nevertheless.
Actually, Miss Ratner, your very presence here is manipulative in
nature and therefore is deceitful, something akin to a lie. You
pretend to be a debater interested in the relevant subjects but do
NOTHING beyond attacking other debaters personally with the purpose of
shutting down public criticism of Israeli policy and of the Israel
Lobby. As you are in that sense a Lobby agent, your pretenses are
false and your conduct is reprehensible. You're a classic labeler
straight out of the Hasbara Manual.
Count 1
posts of Yousaybeus to you. You have now admitted that you are
Yousaybeus. That is a classical and unambiguous example of lying. I
firmly believe you have followed type by denying you are Count 1, but
that's not worth the struggle as it is not on my subjects. I will
treat it as a lie nevertheless.
Uhhh... you first have to show he and I are the same, and then hope that
whatever you produce withstands the reams of evidence showing you to be in
complete error.
Then - if you are able to achieve that impossible feat - will you be able to
suggest he is 'lying' about denying he and I are the same.
Imagine if I accused you of lying to me by denying my claim that you and
Mirelle are the same person. It wouldn't even be worth your time to address,
and that is how we feel about this claim of yours.
It has no basis in fact or logic, and for you to continue making the
allegation you must be:
1) very stupid,
2) a troll,
3) or a liar.
Those are the only possible outcomes, and 'all of the above' or any
combination of the three will also be acceptable. It kind of looks like your
time on this board is rapidly coming to an end. Very soon I expect most
regulars will simply stop responding to a propagandizing, misogynistic troll
uninterested in acting decenctly or with integrity and who simply posts
nonsensical bullshit designed to demonize Israel exclusively. Plus, what's
the point of discussing anything with someone who just runs from threads
when the going gets tough?
Count 1
<danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85065a21-ca5f-408d...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:50 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No deals, Ratner.
***
Why did you even post this? We all know you are a wussy...
***
Yep. Total coward. But to be fair, I wouldn't want to bet against drahcir
either.
danski...@gmail.com
> <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I second that.
drahcir
H, you're off topic, and quite pretentiously at that. The topic is
your cowardice.
Still waiting....
drahcir
H thinks he can distract from the fact that he is unable to cite even
one lie of mine, therefore when he said that I "do lie a lot", he was
lying.
Still waiting....
drahcir
> On Mar 11, 7:17 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > Ha. You do lie a lot, Ratner.
>
> > > > That's a lie. Again. I challenge you to cite one lie I have EVER
> > > > posted here. If you succeed, I will leave forever. Will you accept
> > > > this as well as the reverse? WILL YOU?
>
> > > I don't want you to leave. Why should I? And I'm certainly not going
> > > to do so. Remember that message the Palestinians had me deliver to
> > > you.
>
> > Ooops, forgot something (sorry - was in phone conversation while
> > replying)
>
> > The above is simply proof that HHW cannot cite one lie of mine,
> > therefore lied when he said that "I do lie a lot".
>
> > <snip>
>
> 1. You LIED in saying that Google was mistaken in attributing the
> posts of Yousaybeus to you.
Um, I never said that. You need to learn to read. For entertainment,
let's look at precisely what I said, and sit in amazement that HHW, a
grown person who supposedly graduated from high school, could have
misconstrued it to such an extent:
*****
Hey, H, I think I may have fixed it. Thanks for the motivation. I went
to Google Groups Help to post a question regarding this issue, but saw
that one had to join in order to post. After joining, it had me listed
as "yousaybeus" - perhaps I had joined at one point under that name,
then unjoined. After joining, I switched the nickname to drahcir,
and it appears that all is well. Feeling better now?
*****
You have now admitted that you are
> Yousaybeus. That is a classical and unambiguous example of lying. I
> firmly believe you have followed type by denying you are Count 1, but
> that's not worth the struggle as it is not on my subjects. I will
> treat it as a lie nevertheless.
There is not a soul here, cramer included, who isn't wincing at your
desperation. It is truly a pitiful sight. Even if we ignore the above
cite, I have always taken full ownership of all posts by yousaybeus,
and explained on two or three occasions in these groups that I did not
understand why I was being listed as such. Yikes, H, I am amazed how
easy it has been to drive you to embarrass yourself to such an
extent.
>
> Actually, Miss Ratner, your very presence here is manipulative in
> nature and therefore is deceitful, something akin to a lie. You
> pretend to be a debater interested in the relevant subjects but do
> NOTHING beyond attacking other debaters personally with the purpose of
> shutting down public criticism of Israeli policy and of the Israel
> Lobby.
I see. So when I pointed out that Feiglin's premises were mistaken,
whom was I attacking, you or feiglin? WHen I showed that Plan Daleth
was not what Pappe and in his place, you were claiming it was, a post
from which you fled like the wind, I suppose I was attacking you, eh?
No, you post the above nonsense only to try to evade the fact that you
cannot cite one lie of mine ever, and thus are proven a liar in that
accusation.
As you are in that sense a Lobby agent, your pretenses are
> false and your conduct is reprehensible. You're a classic labeler
> straight out of the Hasbara Manual.
LOL! Like probably most people here, I don't even know what Hasbara
is. You and Mirelle seem to have a lock on it.
HHW
> 1. You LIED in saying that Google was mistaken in attributing the
> posts of Yousaybeus to you. You have now admitted that you are
> Yousaybeus. That is a classical and unambiguous example of lying. I
> firmly believe you have followed type by denying you are Count 1, but
> that's not worth the struggle as it is not on my subjects. I will
> treat it as a lie nevertheless.
> ****
>
> Uhhh... you first have to show he and I are the same, and then hope that
> whatever you produce withstands the reams of evidence showing you to be in
> complete error.
Really now. But I disagree.
>
> Then - if you are able to achieve that impossible feat - will you be able to
> suggest he is 'lying' about denying he and I are the same.
>
> Imagine if I accused you of lying to me by denying my claim that you and
> Mirelle are the same person. It wouldn't even be worth your time to address,
> and that is how we feel about this claim of yours.
"Feel" as you will.
>
> It has no basis in fact or logic, and for you to continue making the
> allegation you must be:
>
> 1) very stupid,
> 2) a troll,
> 3) or a liar.
>
> Those are the only possible outcomes, and 'all of the above' or any
> combination of the three will also be acceptable. It kind of looks like your
> time on this board is rapidly coming to an end. Very soon I expect most
> regulars will simply stop responding to a propagandizing, misogynistic troll
> uninterested in acting decenctly or with integrity and who simply posts
> nonsensical bullshit designed to demonize Israel exclusively. Plus, what's
> the point of discussing anything with someone who just runs from threads
> when the going gets tough?
Sounds like you're about to bolt again, Ratner.
HHW
Actually, here's the topic::
1. You LIED in saying that Google was mistaken in attributing the
posts of Yousaybeus to you. You have now admitted that you are
Yousaybeus. That is a classical and unambiguous example of lying. I
firmly believe you have followed type by denying you are Count 1, but
that's not worth the struggle as it is not on my subjects. I will
treat it as a lie nevertheless.
Actually, Miss Ratner, your very presence here is manipulative in
nature and therefore is deceitful, something akin to a lie. You
pretend to be a debater interested in the relevant subjects but do
NOTHING beyond attacking other debaters personally with the purpose
of
shutting down public criticism of Israeli policy and of the Israel
Lobby. As you are in that sense a Lobby agent, your pretenses are
HHW
1. You LIED in saying that Google was mistaken in attributing the
B.H. Cramer
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e543d1dc-6cad-461f...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Totally agree with you, "H". A very accurate summary of the silly little
quean's behaviour and raison d'etre.
drahcir
Poor H, completely shut down and forced to repeat a silly post that
everyone here knows is crap, and that has been refuted earlier in this
thread. Poor, poor H....
drahcir
LOL!! Gee, I wonder if anyone will notice that you fled from the post
just below that refutes the copy and paste above. I guess with enough
tequila and alzheimers, you can convince yourself of just about
anything.
Poor H, completely shut down and forced to repeat a silly post that
everyone here knows is crap, and that EVERYONE KNOWS has been refuted
Count 1
On Mar 11, 2:06 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1. You LIED in saying that Google was mistaken in attributing the
> posts of Yousaybeus to you. You have now admitted that you are
> Yousaybeus. That is a classical and unambiguous example of lying. I
> firmly believe you have followed type by denying you are Count 1, but
> that's not worth the struggle as it is not on my subjects. I will
> treat it as a lie nevertheless.
> ****
>
> Uhhh... you first have to show he and I are the same, and then hope that
> whatever you produce withstands the reams of evidence showing you to be in
> complete error.
Really now. But I disagree.
****
You disagree that you have to produce some facts that back up your claims?
Everybody does, why should you be any different?
drahcir
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Let him go on with this nonsense. It just affirms his idiocy, as if
any were needed, in everyone's mind.