Re: Rick cannot defend his actions - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Rick cannot defend his actions - Linux ; "Rick" stated in post VaWdnVPx74PSPuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:40 PM: .... >>> I don't think he gets the concept that customers might be interested to >>> know what others think of his levels of expertise and moral character. >> >> I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

  1. Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnVPx74PSPuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:40 PM:

    ....
    >>> I don't think he gets the concept that customers might be interested to
    >>> know what others think of his levels of expertise and moral character.

    >>
    >> I do not want you and your co-trolls to associate *your* posts with
    >> me... that reflects poorly on me. People might think that you and your
    >> ilk actually - LOL - are not lying swines.

    >
    > You are associating your posts with you.


    Of course... but irrelevant to the fact that you react to being "beaten" in
    a Usenet debate by lashing out and tying your derogatory and dishonest
    comments to my personal and professional information. You do this in order
    to try to pull folks searching for information about *me* to *your* posts...
    to your dishonest and derogatory BS.

    There is no defense for that behavior from you. None.


    --
    Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472


  2. Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:57:19 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnVPx74PSPuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:40 PM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>> I don't think he gets the concept that customers might be interested
    >>>> to know what others think of his levels of expertise and moral
    >>>> character.
    >>>
    >>> I do not want you and your co-trolls to associate *your* posts with
    >>> me... that reflects poorly on me. People might think that you and
    >>> your ilk actually - LOL - are not lying swines.

    >>
    >> You are associating your posts with you.

    >
    > Of course... but irrelevant to the fact that you react to being "beaten"
    > in a Usenet debate by lashing out and tying your derogatory and
    > dishonest comments to my personal and professional information. You do
    > this in order to try to pull folks searching for information about *me*
    > to *your* posts... to your dishonest and derogatory BS.
    >
    > There is no defense for that behavior from you. None.


    Idiot.



    --
    Rick

  3. Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnVLx74NZduTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 4:49 AM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:57:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> VaWdnVPx74PSPuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:40 PM:
    >>
    >> ...
    >>>>> I don't think he gets the concept that customers might be interested
    >>>>> to know what others think of his levels of expertise and moral
    >>>>> character.
    >>>>
    >>>> I do not want you and your co-trolls to associate *your* posts with
    >>>> me... that reflects poorly on me. People might think that you and
    >>>> your ilk actually - LOL - are not lying swines.
    >>>
    >>> You are associating your posts with you.

    >>
    >> Of course... but irrelevant to the fact that you react to being "beaten"
    >> in a Usenet debate by lashing out and tying your derogatory and
    >> dishonest comments to my personal and professional information. You do
    >> this in order to try to pull folks searching for information about *me*
    >> to *your* posts... to your dishonest and derogatory BS.
    >>
    >> There is no defense for that behavior from you. None.

    >
    > Idiot.


    And that, clearly, is your best "defense".

    Really.



    --
    Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!


  4. Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

    > **** wrote:
    >>
    >> There is no defense


    .... for what a dishonest POS you are, ****. FOAD, ****.

  5. Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:18:02 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnVLx74NZduTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 4:49 AM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:57:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> VaWdnVPx74PSPuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:40 PM:
    >>>
    >>> ...
    >>>>>> I don't think he gets the concept that customers might be
    >>>>>> interested to know what others think of his levels of expertise and
    >>>>>> moral character.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I do not want you and your co-trolls to associate *your* posts with
    >>>>> me... that reflects poorly on me. People might think that you and
    >>>>> your ilk actually - LOL - are not lying swines.
    >>>>
    >>>> You are associating your posts with you.
    >>>
    >>> Of course... but irrelevant to the fact that you react to being
    >>> "beaten" in a Usenet debate by lashing out and tying your derogatory
    >>> and dishonest comments to my personal and professional information.
    >>> You do this in order to try to pull folks searching for information
    >>> about *me* to *your* posts... to your dishonest and derogatory BS.
    >>>
    >>> There is no defense for that behavior from you. None.

    >>
    >> Idiot.

    >
    > And that, clearly, is your best "defense".
    >
    > Really.


    Yes. You are an idiot. Really.


    --
    Rick

  6. Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnUfx74NGtufVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 9:22 AM:

    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:18:02 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> VaWdnVLx74NZduTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 4:49 AM:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:57:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>> VaWdnVPx74PSPuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:40 PM:
    >>>>
    >>>> ...
    >>>>>>> I don't think he gets the concept that customers might be
    >>>>>>> interested to know what others think of his levels of expertise and
    >>>>>>> moral character.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I do not want you and your co-trolls to associate *your* posts with
    >>>>>> me... that reflects poorly on me. People might think that you and
    >>>>>> your ilk actually - LOL - are not lying swines.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You are associating your posts with you.
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course... but irrelevant to the fact that you react to being
    >>>> "beaten" in a Usenet debate by lashing out and tying your derogatory
    >>>> and dishonest comments to my personal and professional information.
    >>>> You do this in order to try to pull folks searching for information
    >>>> about *me* to *your* posts... to your dishonest and derogatory BS.
    >>>>
    >>>> There is no defense for that behavior from you. None.
    >>>
    >>> Idiot.

    >>
    >> And that, clearly, is your best "defense".
    >>
    >> Really.

    >
    > Yes. You are an idiot. Really.
    >

    And now Rick shows he cannot get back to the topic of his indefensible
    actions... all he can do is spew grade school insults.

    I shall not sink to your level, Rick.


    --
    "Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
    all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs




  7. Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:46:15 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnUfx74NGtufVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 9:22 AM:
    >
    >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:18:02 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> VaWdnVLx74NZduTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 4:49 AM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:57:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>> VaWdnVPx74PSPuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:40 PM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ...
    >>>>>>>> I don't think he gets the concept that customers might be
    >>>>>>>> interested to know what others think of his levels of expertise
    >>>>>>>> and moral character.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I do not want you and your co-trolls to associate *your* posts
    >>>>>>> with me... that reflects poorly on me. People might think that
    >>>>>>> you and your ilk actually - LOL - are not lying swines.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You are associating your posts with you.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Of course... but irrelevant to the fact that you react to being
    >>>>> "beaten" in a Usenet debate by lashing out and tying your derogatory
    >>>>> and dishonest comments to my personal and professional information.
    >>>>> You do this in order to try to pull folks searching for information
    >>>>> about *me* to *your* posts... to your dishonest and derogatory BS.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There is no defense for that behavior from you. None.
    >>>>
    >>>> Idiot.
    >>>
    >>> And that, clearly, is your best "defense".
    >>>
    >>> Really.

    >>
    >> Yes. You are an idiot. Really.
    >>

    > And now Rick shows he cannot get back to the topic of his indefensible
    > actions... all he can do is spew grade school insults.
    >
    > I shall not sink to your level, Rick.



    Yes. You are an idiot. Really.


    --
    Rick

  8. Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnUPx74Pbp-fVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 10:24 AM:

    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:46:15 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> VaWdnUfx74NGtufVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 9:22 AM:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:18:02 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>> VaWdnVLx74NZduTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 4:49 AM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:57:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>>> VaWdnVPx74PSPuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:40 PM:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ...
    >>>>>>>>> I don't think he gets the concept that customers might be
    >>>>>>>>> interested to know what others think of his levels of expertise
    >>>>>>>>> and moral character.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I do not want you and your co-trolls to associate *your* posts
    >>>>>>>> with me... that reflects poorly on me. People might think that
    >>>>>>>> you and your ilk actually - LOL - are not lying swines.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You are associating your posts with you.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Of course... but irrelevant to the fact that you react to being
    >>>>>> "beaten" in a Usenet debate by lashing out and tying your derogatory
    >>>>>> and dishonest comments to my personal and professional information.
    >>>>>> You do this in order to try to pull folks searching for information
    >>>>>> about *me* to *your* posts... to your dishonest and derogatory BS.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> There is no defense for that behavior from you. None.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Idiot.
    >>>>
    >>>> And that, clearly, is your best "defense".
    >>>>
    >>>> Really.
    >>>
    >>> Yes. You are an idiot. Really.
    >>>

    >> And now Rick shows he cannot get back to the topic of his indefensible
    >> actions... all he can do is spew grade school insults.
    >>
    >> I shall not sink to your level, Rick.

    >
    >
    > Yes. You are an idiot. Really.


    I noted actions of yours - specific actions that are completely
    indefensible, specifically your repeated use of my name and, sometimes, my
    business name in response to your clear loss of Usenet debates... and your
    response is to call me names.

    This shows a lack of morality on your part, Rick. Really.




    --
    God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?




  9. Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:58:27 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnUPx74Pbp-fVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 10:24 AM:
    >
    >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:46:15 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> VaWdnUfx74NGtufVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 9:22 AM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:18:02 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>> VaWdnVLx74NZduTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 4:49 AM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:57:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>>>> VaWdnVPx74PSPuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:40
    >>>>>>> PM:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> ...
    >>>>>>>>>> I don't think he gets the concept that customers might be
    >>>>>>>>>> interested to know what others think of his levels of expertise
    >>>>>>>>>> and moral character.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I do not want you and your co-trolls to associate *your* posts
    >>>>>>>>> with me... that reflects poorly on me. People might think that
    >>>>>>>>> you and your ilk actually - LOL - are not lying swines.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> You are associating your posts with you.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course... but irrelevant to the fact that you react to being
    >>>>>>> "beaten" in a Usenet debate by lashing out and tying your
    >>>>>>> derogatory and dishonest comments to my personal and professional
    >>>>>>> information. You do this in order to try to pull folks searching
    >>>>>>> for information about *me* to *your* posts... to your dishonest
    >>>>>>> and derogatory BS.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> There is no defense for that behavior from you. None.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Idiot.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And that, clearly, is your best "defense".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Really.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes. You are an idiot. Really.
    >>>>
    >>> And now Rick shows he cannot get back to the topic of his indefensible
    >>> actions... all he can do is spew grade school insults.
    >>>
    >>> I shall not sink to your level, Rick.

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes. You are an idiot. Really.

    >
    > I noted actions of yours - specific actions that are completely
    > indefensible, specifically your repeated use of my name and, sometimes,
    > my business name in response to your clear loss of Usenet debates... and
    > your response is to call me names.
    >
    > This shows a lack of morality on your part, Rick. Really.



    Yes. You are an idiot. Really.


    --
    Rick

  10. Re: Rick cannot defend his actions

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnXrx74Mt4OfVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 3:12 PM:

    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:58:27 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> VaWdnUPx74Pbp-fVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 10:24 AM:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:46:15 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>> VaWdnUfx74NGtufVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 9:22 AM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:18:02 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>>> VaWdnVLx74NZduTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 4:49 AM:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:57:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>>>>> VaWdnVPx74PSPuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:40
    >>>>>>>> PM:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> ...
    >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think he gets the concept that customers might be
    >>>>>>>>>>> interested to know what others think of his levels of expertise
    >>>>>>>>>>> and moral character.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> I do not want you and your co-trolls to associate *your* posts
    >>>>>>>>>> with me... that reflects poorly on me. People might think that
    >>>>>>>>>> you and your ilk actually - LOL - are not lying swines.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> You are associating your posts with you.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Of course... but irrelevant to the fact that you react to being
    >>>>>>>> "beaten" in a Usenet debate by lashing out and tying your
    >>>>>>>> derogatory and dishonest comments to my personal and professional
    >>>>>>>> information. You do this in order to try to pull folks searching
    >>>>>>>> for information about *me* to *your* posts... to your dishonest
    >>>>>>>> and derogatory BS.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> There is no defense for that behavior from you. None.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Idiot.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And that, clearly, is your best "defense".
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Really.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes. You are an idiot. Really.
    >>>>>
    >>>> And now Rick shows he cannot get back to the topic of his indefensible
    >>>> actions... all he can do is spew grade school insults.
    >>>>
    >>>> I shall not sink to your level, Rick.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Yes. You are an idiot. Really.

    >>
    >> I noted actions of yours - specific actions that are completely
    >> indefensible, specifically your repeated use of my name and, sometimes,
    >> my business name in response to your clear loss of Usenet debates... and
    >> your response is to call me names.
    >>
    >> This shows a lack of morality on your part, Rick. Really.

    >
    >
    > Yes. You are an idiot. Really.
    >


    Your grade school antics grow boring.

    But it is the best you can do to "defend" your reprehensible behavior.

    And it shall go on - you cannot help yourself.


    --
    "And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. Itıs
    never a reason." - Bill Gates


+ Reply to Thread