Re: <none> - Mandrake

This is a discussion on Re: <none> - Mandrake ; Aragorn wrote: > I was not observing you, I was reading a ****ing news group that YOU >> posted to. > > Yeah, right. *Right after I had posted a message ID here to an advocacy > post I had ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 100

Thread: Re: <none>

  1. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > I was not observing you, I was reading a ****ing news group that YOU
    >> posted to.

    >
    > Yeah, right. *Right after I had posted a message ID here to an advocacy
    > post I had made there. *What a strange coincidence.
    >


    If you ADVERTISED the message ID and I went to read it, then I would not
    have been a stalker. If you were referencing that ID for what ever reason,
    then you were INVITING everyone to read it. You can NOT accuse someone of
    being a stalker when they were INVITED.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  2. Re: <none>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 19:37, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> Pointing out someone's errors is NOT "bullying, harassment, libel or
    >>> slander" in this group or any other.

    >>
    >> Oh, pray, do tell, how exactly did you point out an error of mine in
    >> posting "The standard response from Aragorn to anyone who doesn't agree
    >> with him"

    >
    > Well, when I quote form a dictionary to prove you wrong.


    Total hogwash and off-topic, and you *know* it!

    > But hey, why would YOU be bothered with details from AUTHORITATIVE
    > sources, eh?
    >
    > You are just making stuff up now.


    Please address the issue that I asked you to address. I am talking of your
    reply to a post of mine - the Google Groups link was posted earlier but I'd
    be more than happy to dig it up again if need be - that /plonking/ someone
    is "the standard response from me to anyone who doesn't agree with me"
    when...
    (1) *you* were the only one I had /plonked/ before I /killfiled/ that troll;
    (2) the /plonked/ person on /C.O.L.A./ was indeed a known troll and his post
    had nothing to do with "disagreeing with me"; and
    (3) you re-routed a thread I posted here - in which I exposed you for what
    you are - to /C.O.L.A.,/ where it had no business?

    If you're not going to address this issue, you might as well shut up about
    everything else, because you have already proven to be exactly what I said
    you are in full abundance and redundance.

    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  3. Re: <none>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 19:43, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> Oh, pray, do tell, how exactly did you point out an error of mine in
    >> posting "The standard response from Aragorn to anyone who doesn't agree
    >> with him" as a reply to a post in which I plonk a known nymshifting
    >> Wintroll, especially since that person was only the second person I had
    >> plonked - you being the first one?

    >
    > The fact that you are UNWILLING to acknowledged your faults does not mean
    > that I am not accurately pointing them out. What is in YOUR killfile does
    > not determine reality. My guess is that you are so arrogant and so sure of
    > your ideas that anyone that questions your word is threatening your little
    > fantasy world and has to be ignored or you will have to deal with reality,
    > something you seem totally unwilling to do.


    If I had written the above paragraph about you, then there would actually be
    some truth in it.

    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  4. Re: <none>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 19:44, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> So, because YOU don't "normally use" them for communicating, that
    >>> somehow means I followed you in there and was not already there reading
    >>> the list. you are just plain WARPED and have NO grasp of reality.

    >>
    >> *That one is really brilliant, Matt!

    >
    > Yes, it is. It is also the TRUTH. You seem to think that YOUR behavior
    > defines my motives, something that is simply not true. Where you post and
    > how often have nothing to do with what groups I am reading.


    Maybe not, but it still has a lot to do with what you post as a reply to my
    own posts in whatever group, or to the re-routing of a thread that I
    started over to another newsgroup.

    So address the issue or shut up, bully boy.

    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  5. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > Please address the issue that I asked you to address.


    Why do I have to do something you have repeatedly failed to do?

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  6. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> The fact that you are UNWILLING to acknowledged your faults does not mean
    >> that I am not accurately pointing them out. What is in YOUR killfile does
    >> not determine reality. My guess is that you are so arrogant and so sure
    >> of your ideas that anyone that questions your word is threatening your
    >> little fantasy world and has to be ignored or you will have to deal with
    >> reality, something you seem totally unwilling to do.

    >
    > If I had written the above paragraph about you, then there would actually
    > be some truth in it.
    >


    But since it is written about YOU, it is 100% true.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  7. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> Yes, it is. It is also the TRUTH. You seem to think that YOUR behavior
    >> defines my motives, something that is simply not true. Where you post and
    >> how often have nothing to do with what groups I am reading.

    >
    > Maybe not,


    No maybe about it.

    > but it still has a lot to do with what you post as a reply to
    > my own posts in whatever group, or to the re-routing of a thread that I
    > started over to another newsgroup.


    You ASKED people to read your cola post, YOU INVITED all of usenet to go to
    cola. A person can not be a stalker if you invited them to read a post you
    made to cola by posting the Message ID of the post.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  8. Re: <none>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 19:55, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> Then you have been stalking me though two threads. You STARTED the
    >>> interchange with me in the other tread with a BIASED, harassing post and
    >>> continued it with lies that I DOCUMENTED at the time.

    >>
    >> Harassing you? *Dude, I felt sorry for you in the first thread because
    >> you did not see that they were playing you.

    >
    > Ah, then you admit it, you were not joining as a NEUTRAL.


    Since you are so keen on playing out semantics, "neutral" is an adjective.
    As it does not accompany a substantive, it is linked to the verb "to be" in
    this context. Ergo "I am (being) neutral" is a grammatically correct
    sentence.

    Now, the issue is "In what am I being neutral", considering that there is no
    adjective. I could be neutral from the chemical point of view, although I
    doubt that aside from being grammatically correct it would have any
    realistic meaning.

    The fact is that I was neutral from the point of view of "there is no
    absolute good or bad in this context", with "this context" referring to
    your being made fun of by Freemont.

    I chose to address you in order to:
    (1) point out that Freemont was yanking your chain - and you seemed in need
    of such information, given your reactions to his posts;
    (2) point out to you *why* Freemont was attacking you.

    But of course, since you chose to immediately direct all your hostility
    towards me, it was you yourself who deprived me of my neutrality. Whereas
    there could - at least, by your narrowminded definition - have been some
    kind of slight bias to _your_ advantage, your attacks on me have almost
    immediately driven me to rather sympathize with Freemont than with you.

    In other words, someone was actually willing to stand up for you - not that
    you deserve it, and I already knew that to boot, but call me naive - and
    you drove him away. Or once again: you bite the hand that feeds you, and
    then you complain of indigestion.

    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  9. Re: <none>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 20:02, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> Please address the issue that I asked you to address.

    >
    > Why do I have to do something you have repeatedly failed to do?


    Because I am telling you to do so. If you don't, then *anything* *you*
    *say* *is* *automatically* *void.*

    And even if you do, then it's still automatically void, because there is no
    righteous explanation for what you did back there and back then. You're a
    bully, and that's what you'll always be.

    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  10. Re: <none>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 20:03, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> The fact that you are UNWILLING to acknowledged your faults does not
    >>> mean that I am not accurately pointing them out. What is in YOUR
    >>> killfile does not determine reality. My guess is that you are so
    >>> arrogant and so sure of your ideas that anyone that questions your word
    >>> is threatening your little fantasy world and has to be ignored or you
    >>> will have to deal with reality, something you seem totally unwilling to
    >>> do.

    >>
    >> If I had written the above paragraph about you, then there would actually
    >> be some truth in it.
    >>

    >
    > But since it is written about YOU, it is 100% true.


    Until you address the issues I spoke of, anything you say is to be regarded
    as absolute balderdash. And the above paragraph from you is exactly that,
    even *if* you do choose to address the issues I spoke of.

    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  11. Re: <none>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 20:05, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> but it still has a lot to do with what you post as a reply to
    >> my own posts in whatever group, or to the re-routing of a thread that I
    >> started over to another newsgroup.

    >
    > You ASKED people to read your cola post, YOU INVITED all of usenet to go
    > to cola. A person can not be a stalker if you invited them to read a post
    > you made to cola by posting the Message ID of the post.


    And this excuses your lies about me in that reply of yours how exactly? And
    this excuses the rerouting of a thread about *you* posted here by me
    to /C.O.L.A./ how exactly?

    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  12. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> Ah, then you admit it, you were not joining as a NEUTRAL.

    >
    > Since you are so keen on playing out semantics,


    Ahhh, since I was NOT playing semantics, I see you are going to play word
    games to deflect from your biased posts in the past.

    No, I no longer read your virtually content free ramblings in full, I do not
    need to any longer. They lack and true substance and seem only to be an
    attempt to baffle with bull****. In other words, quantiy does not mean
    quality.

    Before you hurl and more false accusations, your claim of stalking is total
    slander and such a total misrepresentation of what happened as to show that
    you have such an extreme prejudice against me that anything you say about
    me is not to be taken as reality.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  13. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > Why do I have to do something you have repeatedly failed to do?
    >
    > Because I am telling you to do so.


    Oh, Like you were telling me I was a stalker when you actually INVITED all
    of usenet to cola to read your post?

    > If you don't, then anything you
    > say is automatically *void.*


    Wow, what I tactic, make an idiotic claim and if I don't go along with your
    idiocy, everything I say is viod. HOW DESPERATE ARE YOU? HOW OLD ARE YOU?
    If you are over 21, it is time to move out of mommy's basement.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  14. Re: <none>

    On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:00:37 GMT, Aragorn wrote:

    > If I had written the above paragraph about you, then there would actually be
    > some truth in it.


    Face facts, you'll never be able to smack matt_(in)the_mouth... sadly. Why
    not accept that he's just twisted beyond belief, killfile the stupid
    ****wit and get on with life again? Let him have the final word... like
    all spoilt brats enjoy.

    --
    Linux: because I work with Windows, and that's bad enough.
    AOLM FAQ - http://blinkynet.net/comp/faq_aolm.html
    RLU #300033 - MDK 10.2 - WindowMaker 0.92.0

  15. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> But since it is written about YOU, it is 100% true.

    >
    > Until you address the issues I spoke of, anything you say is to be
    > regarded as absolute balderdash. *And the above paragraph from you is
    > exactly that, even if you do choose to address the issues I spoke of.
    >


    Yeah, right. This coming from someone that accuses someone of being a
    stalker because they go where they were invited. You have slandered me with
    you accusations repeatedly, I see no reason to take you seriously here.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  16. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> You ASKED people to read your cola post, YOU INVITED all of usenet to go
    >> to cola. A person can not be a stalker if you invited them to read a post
    >> you made to cola by posting the Message ID of the post.

    >
    > And this excuses your lies about me in that reply of yours how exactly?


    IT PROVES that YOU lied when you called me a stalker. As of yet, I have
    never seen you PROVE me a liar, I have seen you CLAIM me to be a liar, but
    hey, those claims are from someone that accuses an invited guest of being a
    stalker.

    > And this excuses the rerouting of a thread about you posted here by me
    > to /C.O.L.A./ how exactly?


    Gezzzz, the hostility is truly showing. You made a public statement in a
    public forum. I am doing nothing but discussing PUBLICLY what you have
    already said publicly. What you say in a newsgroup IS PUBLIC record. If you
    do not want what you say discussed PUBLICLY, then DON'T SAY IT IN A PUBLIC
    place.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  17. Re: <none>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 20:20, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> Ah, then you admit it, you were not joining as a NEUTRAL.

    >>
    >> Since you are so keen on playing out semantics,

    >
    > Ahhh, since I was NOT playing semantics, I see you are going to play word
    > games to deflect from your biased posts in the past.
    >
    > No, I no longer read your virtually content free ramblings in full, I do
    > not need to any longer.


    Like you ever have... Too bad, because if you won't read my post in full,
    you'll never understand what I have to say, and thus you are deliberately
    impeding yourself from obtaining information that could be valuable in the
    resolving of a conflict.

    In other words, you *want* this conflict to continue. Okay... So that's
    something we already knew, but it sure is a revelation that it comes out of
    your own mouth.

    > They lack and true substance and seem only to be an attempt to baffle with
    > bull****. In other words, quantiy does not mean quality.


    What a load of crap! Dude, just admit that you were solely driven by hatred
    when you re-routed my thread to /C.O.L.A./ - which is a violation
    of /Netiquette/ - and when you posted that reply to me over in that group.

    > Before you hurl and more false accusations, your claim of stalking is
    > total slander and such a total misrepresentation of what happened as to
    > show that you have such an extreme prejudice against me that anything you
    > say about me is not to be taken as reality.


    Such a misrepresentation? So *you* are the victim when you re-route my
    thread and when you post deliberately libelous lies about me?

    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  18. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > And even if you do, then it's still automatically void, because there is
    > no righteous explanation for what you did back there and back then.


    You mean other than discussing a statement you made PUBLICLY in public? I
    can discuss any statement you make publicly ANY WHERE I WANT. If you made
    the statement to me in private, that would be a different matter. If you
    don't like people discussing what you have said publicly, then don't say
    things publicly. What is inexcusable is that you think I am restricted at
    to where I discuss your PUBLIC statements.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  19. Re: <none>

    Dave wrote:

    >> If I had written the above paragraph about you, then there would actually
    >> be some truth in it.

    >
    > Face facts, you'll never be able to smack matt_(in)the_mouth... sadly.


    Yes, it is difficult to discredit the person that has TRUTH on their side,
    still you and aragron continue to try.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  20. Re: <none>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 20:31, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> You ASKED people to read your cola post, YOU INVITED all of usenet to go
    >>> to cola. A person can not be a stalker if you invited them to read a
    >>> post you made to cola by posting the Message ID of the post.

    >>
    >> And this excuses your lies about me in that reply of yours how exactly?

    >
    > IT PROVES that YOU lied when you called me a stalker. As of yet, I have
    > never seen you PROVE me a liar, I have seen you CLAIM me to be a liar, but
    > hey, those claims are from someone that accuses an invited guest of being
    > a stalker.


    It's not about the invitation, it's about how you abused that invitation.

    >> And this excuses the rerouting of a thread about you posted here by me
    >> to /C.O.L.A./ how exactly?

    >
    > Gezzzz, the hostility is truly showing. You made a public statement in a
    > public forum. I am doing nothing but discussing PUBLICLY what you have
    > already said publicly. What you say in a newsgroup IS PUBLIC record. If
    > you do not want what you say discussed PUBLICLY, then DON'T SAY IT IN A
    > PUBLIC place.


    Absolute drivel! Here's the logical order of events to spice up your
    memory:

    1. I only have one person in my /killfile,/ i.e. you.
    2. I post an advocacy post to /C.O.L.A./
    3. A troll posts libel about me and claims that I am Rex Ballard.
    4. I /killfile/ the troll.
    5. *You* post that I /killfile/ everyone "who doesn't agree with me".
    6. I post a thread to /A.O.L.M./ in which I expose you.
    7. You reroute the thread to /C.O.L.A./ (_without_ a follow-up to /A.O.L.M./
    and in clear breach of the /Netiquette./)

    So how does your shuffle in the above paragraph explain this? It doesn't.
    It's only there to steer away from the subject. As always.

    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast