Re: <none> - Mandrake

This is a discussion on Re: <none> - Mandrake ; Bit Twister wrote: > "then you lie when you make claims about what they know." IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about what they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 100

Thread: Re: <none>

  1. Re: <none>

    Bit Twister wrote:

    > "then you lie when you make claims about what they know."


    IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about what
    they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you don't get
    it, simple stuff is too complex for you.

    --
    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 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:47:22 -0700, left_coast wrote:
    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >> "then you lie when you make claims about what they know."

    >
    > IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about what
    > they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you don't get
    > it, simple stuff is too complex for you.


    More lies. I never claim to know what they know. You made the twisted
    lying statement and you are continuing to attempt to push that lie
    down my throat. Drop the attempt, it is getting old.

  3. Re: <none>

    Bit Twister wrote:

    >> IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about
    >> what they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you
    >> don't get it, simple stuff is too complex for you.

    >
    > More lies. I never claim to know what they know. You made the twisted
    > lying statement and you are continuing to attempt to push that lie
    > down my throat. Drop the attempt, it is getting old.


    Yes, your inability to remember what you said is getting OLD. But it just
    confirms my impression that you don't know what you are talking about.



    --
    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.

  4. Re: <none>

    On Saturday 14 October 2006 05:47, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >> "then you lie when you make claims about what they know."

    >
    > IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about
    > what they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you don't
    > get it, simple stuff is too complex for you.


    Like understanding colloquial English - the language you were raised in - is
    too complex for you to both read and write?

    Oh, and we know Bit Twister is not a mindreader, but so *you* *are* one
    then?

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  5. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about
    >> what they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you
    >> don't get it, simple stuff is too complex for you.

    >
    > Like understanding colloquial English - the language you were raised in -
    > is too complex for you to both read and write?


    What language did you git you definition of NEUTRAL from? Your hate and
    anger are showing though!

    --
    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>

    On Saturday 14 October 2006 19:59, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >> More lies. I never claim to know what they know. You made the twisted
    >> lying statement and you are continuing to attempt to push that lie
    >> down my throat. Drop the attempt, it is getting old.

    >
    > Yes, your inability to remember what you said is getting OLD.


    Like your inability to remember that you were stalking me on /C.O.L.A.,/ and
    that you re-routed a thread which I posted on /A.O.L.Mandriva/
    to /C.O.L.A.,/ both of which were nothing other than deliberate attempts to
    discredit me in a newsgroup I had only just recently joined as an active
    poster?

    Like your inability to remember that you're in half of the /killfiles/ all
    over Usenet because of the very same thing, i.e. the facts that you use
    lies to call other people liars and that you're a confrontational, hateful
    and malevolently sick person?

    > But it just confirms my impression that you don't know what you are
    > talking about.


    It is actually *you* who doesn't know what he's talking about, since you let
    yourself be guided by those /impressions./ The kind of impressions *you*
    have are known in the psychiatric world as "delusions".

    But even if they're not deluding you, then you still wouldn't mind using
    them, as after all you're nothing but an opportunistic fool without any
    selfrespect. It doesn't even matter what you have to do or say, as long as
    you come out the winner - and this is important! - *in* *your* *own* *eyes.

    Well, I guess it's as good a way as another to turn an absolute loser into a
    winner. Must be a very lonely feeling, hearing the echoes of you being the
    only one who applauds for yourself.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  7. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> Yes, your inability to remember what you said is getting OLD.

    >
    > Like your inability to remember that you were stalking me on /C.O.L.A.,/
    > and


    As I said before, I was already subscribed to the COLA. But I have come to
    expect VERY inaccurate, untruthful, and biased remarks from you.

    --
    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 Sunday 15 October 2006 06:49, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> Yes, your inability to remember what you said is getting OLD.

    >>
    >> Like your inability to remember that you were stalking me on /C.O.L.A.,/
    >> and

    >
    > As I said before, I was already subscribed to the COLA.


    It is funny that that you seemed not to have posted there in months before I
    started posting there as well, and even funnier that the remark in your
    reply to my post there is an absolute bold-faced lie.

    And here's the proof: Before I started posting to /C.O.L.A.,/ you *only*
    could have known me from posting *here* and on /alt.os.linux.mandriva,/ and
    the *only* person in my /killfile/ at that time - and so it had been for a
    _very_ long time, _until_ I started posting on /C.O.L.A./ - was *you.*

    There were *no* *other* people in my /killfile,/ so then how does
    my /killfiling/ of a known nym-shifting troll constitute "the standard
    response from me to anyone who disagrees with me"?

    I'd really like to see you squirm yourself a way out of that one.

    > But I have come to expect VERY inaccurate, untruthful, and biased remarks
    > from you.


    Of course, but then again, you expect very inaccurate, untruthful and biased
    remarks from *everybody* - that is your sole vantage! And the worst of it
    all is that when those expectations prove not to be met, you simply pull
    some fake excuse out of your behind to back up your paranoid delusions and
    your compulsive drive for hostile confrontation.

    *You* are the Usenet equivalent of Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi.
    You're /gung/ /ho/ and you don't know why, but it doesn't matter, as long
    as you can be /gung/ /ho./

    It feels good to do what you do because it feels good to do what you do, and
    that's all the excuse you need.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  9. Re: <none>

    On Sunday 15 October 2006 06:44, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> IF you can not possibly know what they actually know, any claims about
    >>> what they know from you is a lie, simple stuff, guess that's why you
    >>> don't get it, simple stuff is too complex for you.

    >>
    >> Like understanding colloquial English - the language you were raised in -
    >> is too complex for you to both read and write?

    >
    > What language did you git you definition of NEUTRAL from?


    Do you need a dictionary to assess situations? Do you need to have a box of
    crayons with you in order to discern the various colors of a tree in
    mid-fall? Is a 1917 dictionary still accurate - or well-versed - when it
    comes down to assessing abstract and interpersonal concepts?

    > Your hate and anger are showing though!


    There is only one person filled with hatred and anger here on this
    newsgroup, and if you were to look in a mirror, you'd see him.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  10. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > As I said before, I was already subscribed to the COLA.
    >
    > It is funny that that you seemed not to have posted there in months before


    Too stupid to understand that someone can be _SUBSCRIBED_ for YEARS without
    posting?????????? To stupid to understand the difference between claiming
    that I was "subscribed" and that I was responding to anything?

    For someone that claims to be intelligent, you sure DO NOT SHOW IT.

    --
    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.

  11. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > What language did you git you definition of NEUTRAL from?
    >
    > Do you need a dictionary to assess situations?


    Naw, I just used it to show you were WRONG and that you were FALSELY
    claiming neutrality when it does not exist. The situation is, you lied
    about being neutral then you tried to redefine the term. The dictionary was
    only used to document your lies, not assess the situation.

    --
    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.

  12. Re: <none>

    On Sunday 15 October 2006 09:21, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> As I said before, I was already subscribed to the COLA.
    >>
    >> It is funny that that you seemed not to have posted there in months
    >> before

    >
    > Too stupid to understand that someone can be _SUBSCRIBED_ for YEARS
    > without posting??????????


    No, but I can't for the life of me understand why someone would be
    subscribed to /C.O.L.A/ for years without posting a single thing, unless
    said person gets off on the flamewars conducted there.

    I've been subscribed to /C.O.L.A./ for about a year and a half, if not
    longer, and I dumped that group alltogether because it's nothing other than
    a troll cage.

    > To stupid to understand the difference between claiming that I was
    > "subscribed" and that I was responding to anything?


    No, but knowing you for what you have shown of yourself, I would at this
    stage say that you're pulling the above out of your ass.

    > For someone that claims to be intelligent, you sure DO NOT SHOW IT.


    Why should I, when every attempt at intelligent conversation with you is met
    with the comprehension skills of a badly programmed autonomous vacuum
    cleaner and a plethora of attempts to twist and turn my words around until
    they make it appear (to your eyes) as if you're about to win the debate?

    The whole of Usenet - or at least, those who've had the misfortune of having
    made your acquaintance - already knows that having the last say in the
    debate is your only goal, and that you'll lie, twist, snip and obfuscate
    whatever you need to in order to get there.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  13. Re: <none>

    On Sunday 15 October 2006 09:29, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> What language did you git you definition of NEUTRAL from?
    >>
    >> Do you need a dictionary to assess situations?

    >
    > Naw, I just used it to show you were WRONG and that you were FALSELY
    > claiming neutrality when it does not exist. The situation is, you lied
    > about being neutral then you tried to redefine the term. The dictionary
    > was only used to document your lies, not assess the situation.


    I was neutral when I entered the thread. I had assessed the situation and I
    chose to address you about what was going on, without any averse feelings
    towards you or towards Freemont or Dan C.

    I did however give up on being neutral after you had made it abundantly
    clear that you were focussing your attack on *me* - and you've made that
    very clear very fast!

    From then on, I had to choose sides, and I chose *my* side. Forgive me for
    not lining up with you in any attempts to attack or discredit me. Unlike
    you, I *do* know what /selfrespect/ means. You only know the meaning
    of /selfesteem,/ which is a totally different thing.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  14. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> Naw, I just used it to show you were WRONG and that you were FALSELY
    >> claiming neutrality when it does not exist. The situation is, you lied
    >> about being neutral then you tried to redefine the term. The dictionary
    >> was only used to document your lies, not assess the situation.

    >
    > I was neutral when I entered the thread.



    No, you were NOT. You did not address your comments to ANYONE OTHER THAN ME.
    Since you can not be neutral and only attack one side, You lie.
    --
    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.

  15. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > No, but I can't for the life of me understand why someone would be
    > subscribed to /C.O.L.A/ for years without posting a single thing,


    The term is LURKING.


    --
    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>

    On Sunday 15 October 2006 19:28, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> No, but I can't for the life of me understand why someone would be
    >> subscribed to /C.O.L.A/ for years without posting a single thing,

    >
    > The term is LURKING.


    And the term for what you did back there and back then is still "STALKING".
    Like I said, I'd love to see you squirm your way out of that one, but
    you're not even trying. You're just changing the subject and getting
    semantic. As usual, when you have nothing of value to say.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  17. Re: <none>

    On Sunday 15 October 2006 19:27, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> Naw, I just used it to show you were WRONG and that you were FALSELY
    >>> claiming neutrality when it does not exist. The situation is, you lied
    >>> about being neutral then you tried to redefine the term. The dictionary
    >>> was only used to document your lies, not assess the situation.

    >>
    >> I was neutral when I entered the thread.

    >
    >
    > No, you were NOT. You did not address your comments to ANYONE OTHER THAN
    > ME.
    > Since you can not be neutral and only attack one side, You lie.


    So am I to believe then that people who posted comments about you or even a
    persiflage on your behavior are capable of writing but not of reading?

    For your information, this is Usenet, not e-mail.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  18. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> No, you were NOT. You did not address your comments to ANYONE OTHER THAN
    >> ME.
    >> Since you can not be neutral and only attack one side, *You lie.

    >
    > So am I to believe then that people who posted comments about you or even
    > a persiflage on your behavior are capable of writing but not of reading?
    >


    Your motives are NOT DEFINED by the abilities of others. The question of
    YOUR neutrality is NOT based on the actions or abilities of OTHERS. To try
    to claim so is just another lie from you.

    --
    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>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > he term is LURKING.
    >
    > And the term for what you did back there and back then is still
    > "STALKING".


    Another lie from you. since I was lurking in the group, then I was not
    stalking, I just decided to respond to your idiocy because you claim to be
    soooooooo smart but your claims as sooooooo silly and false.

    --
    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 Sunday 15 October 2006 22:58, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> he term is LURKING.
    >>
    >> And the term for what you did back there and back then is still
    >> "STALKING".

    >
    > Another lie from you. since I was lurking in the group, then I was not
    > stalking, I just decided to respond to your idiocy because you claim to be
    > soooooooo smart but your claims as sooooooo silly and false.


    My idiocy? How does /plonking/ an abusive and known Wintroll who insults me
    and claims that I am Rex Ballard constitute idiocy?

    And - pray, do tell - how does it justify that particular post - which was
    nothing other than an attempt to discredit me - and even more importantly:
    how does it justify re-routing a thread from /alt.os.linux.mandriva/
    to /comp.os.linux.advocacy/ when it had nothing to do with advocacy but
    solely with your attempts to discredit me over there? Even the Wintrolls
    in /C.O.L.A./ - /flatfish/ not included, of course - felt it was so
    atrocious that they /killfiled/ you on the spot!

    Nice attempt, Matt, as always. And as always, no cigar. For that you would
    need the truth, but you're not even able to ascertain the truth anymore
    ever since you decided that you have the $DEITY-given right to stampede all
    over it.

    Your kite won't fly. You're a deliberately confrontational,
    opportunistically pedantic and ravingly psychotic individual, and the whole
    of Usenet has already known that for years.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast