Re: <none> - Mandrake

This is a discussion on Re: <none> - Mandrake ; Bit Twister wrote: > Oh no, not so. No apology needed or required. > He kept baiting you with comments and lies about me hoping to > pull me into the fray. Why would I hope to draw you in? ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Re: <none>

  1. Re: <none>

    Bit Twister wrote:

    > Oh no, not so. No apology needed or required.
    > He kept baiting you with comments and lies about me hoping to
    > pull me into the fray.


    Why would I hope to draw you in? All I want it for you to be HONEST about
    test posts. NONE of this would have happened if YOU were HONEST about test
    posts. Guess you and the Aragron can't figure simple stuff like that out.

    --
    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 Sunday 15 October 2006 16:41, Dan C stood up and addressed the masses
    in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:25:41 +0000, Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> Lack of defensive measures on my part embolded him to take on other
    >>> people. You could say it is my fault he jumped you.

    >
    >> Nah, I was just a fool for thinking that I could reason with him. :-/ In
    >> general, people tend to get wiser as time passes by, and I was under the
    >> false assumption that this would have also applied to Matt. On the
    >> contrary, even: it gets worse by the day.

    >
    > Didn't you say you were going to stop trying? Killfile the fool like the
    > rest of Usenet has already done.


    Oh, I'm already beyond trying to reason with him. But letting him have it
    his way will only result in giving him what he wants, so he can later on
    "cite" from this thread - with the necessary twists of the facts - that he
    proved us all to be liars and such.

    Besides, he's not just tackling me, he's also tackling Bit Twister, and just
    about anyone who dares upon up their mouth against him. That's nothing
    other than Usenet terrorism, and I won't stand for that.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  3. Re: <none>

    On Sunday 15 October 2006 19:14, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >> Oh no, not so. No apology needed or required.
    >> He kept baiting you with comments and lies about me hoping to
    >> pull me into the fray.

    >
    > Why would I hope to draw you in? All I want it for you to be HONEST about
    > test posts. NONE of this would have happened if YOU were HONEST about test
    > posts. Guess you and the Aragron can't figure simple stuff like that out.


    And all *we* want is for *you* to allow us to use a sense of humor without
    you slyly attacking us in between the lines, only to twist facts, meanings
    and contexts later while accusing us of all your own vices.

    In other words, let us breathe and we will let *you* breathe. But declare
    war on us and you'll have our nukes down your throat. Is that so
    surprising? Or is defending oneself only *your* prerogative?

    (Not that you actually *are* defending yourself because each and every time
    you open your mouth, you're actually confirming everyone's ideas about
    you.)

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  4. Re: <none>Q

    * left_coast wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
    > SINNER wrote:


    >>> Oh, look, another troll that has NEVER been able to prove ANY of his
    >>> nasty little claims about me, other than that he somehow knows WHAT
    >>> happened om MY computer without ever seeing it. Bit and sinner, mind
    >>> readers both!


    >> I proved it, MID's and all 2x actually.



    > Bwhajhahahhhahahahahahah, Still deluded again. How did you PROVE ANYTHING on
    > my computer? You only described what was SUPPOSED to happen, not what
    > ACTUALLY happened. Still too stupid to understand that difference, eh? And
    > you wonder why I don't take anyone serious here.


    I described exactly what happened on your computer as I had seen the
    same issue discussed a multitude of times. Your incessant screaming
    at Chris to the point of cursing him because of your own stupidity was
    the icing on the proverbial cake so Bwajajajajjaja yourself to death for
    all I care.

    Admitting you were wrong is half the battle matt, and you
    were wrong. Your newsreader was hiding the * because it mistook it for a
    formatting character and so you never saw the code Chris was typing and
    because of it you carried on per your usual MO and to this day refuse to
    admit you were wrong, pathetic.

    I could care less if you take me serious,


    since you seem to know
    everything better than everyone else anyway what could you possibly gain
    from something I say?

    --
    David
    There is a 20% chance of tomorrow.

  5. Re: <none>

    On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:14:58 -0700, left_coast wrote:
    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >> Oh no, not so. No apology needed or required.
    >> He kept baiting you with comments and lies about me hoping to
    >> pull me into the fray.

    >
    > Why would I hope to draw you in?


    To make more attempts at trying to discredit and try to dominate me
    is all I can guess at. Why else would you drag in comments from other
    theads.

    > All I want it for you to be HONEST about test posts.


    Yet Another Fabricated Lie.
    I was not trying to deceive anyone.

    You have called me thought police, cried you have Freedom of Speech
    and now you are attempting to play the poor little victim. There is
    no deceit in the test reply,

    > NONE of this would have happened if YOU were HONEST about test posts.


    Repeating the YAFL is not going to make it true. No deceit was in the post.

    > Guess you and the Aragron can't figure simple stuff like that out.


    Yet Another Topic Redirect Lie with Personal Attack

    That is another one of your lame attempts to steer the thread
    away from your deliberate libelous accusation and a bold faced lying
    response to my test post response.

  6. Re: <none>

    Bit Twister wrote:

    > Why would I hope to draw you in?
    >
    > To make more attempts at trying to discredit


    I don't have to discredit you. YOu did so when you made the false claim
    REPEATEDLY. YOu did so when you claimed my solution to the email thing was
    a kludge. You did so when you claimed that opening up a pop port for the
    whole world to hack was a "better" solution. All I have ever done is POINT
    IT OUT. I have no desire to "draw you in" I only tried to give out correct
    information and warn the poster of some very bad behavior
    --
    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>Q

    SINNER wrote:

    >> Bwhajhahahhhahahahahahah, Still deluded again. How did you PROVE ANYTHING
    >> on my computer? You only described what was SUPPOSED to happen, not what
    >> ACTUALLY happened. Still too stupid to understand that difference, eh?
    >> And you wonder why I don't take anyone serious here.

    >
    > I described exactly what happened on your computer,


    Again, you never saw my computer so any claim that you can describe exactly
    what happened is a FABRICATION. You are a liar, since what you describe was
    NOT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
    --
    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>Q

    * left_coast wrote in alt.os.linux.mandrake:
    > SINNER wrote:


    >>> Bwhajhahahhhahahahahahah, Still deluded again. How did you PROVE ANYTHING
    >>> on my computer? You only described what was SUPPOSED to happen, not what
    >>> ACTUALLY happened. Still too stupid to understand that difference, eh?
    >>> And you wonder why I don't take anyone serious here.


    >> I described exactly what happened on your computer,


    > Again, you never saw my computer so any claim that you can describe exactly
    > what happened is a FABRICATION.


    It is the only possible thing that could have happened for you not to see
    the asterisk, and since that is a known feature of your newsreader is was
    an educated case and it must be right because if not, your wanting to be
    correct blinded you from the truth and we KNOW that could never happen.

    > You are a liar, since what you describe was
    > NOT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.


    Do tell...

    So you just didn't see it 15 times? Yeah, OK Matt. It didn't happen but
    there is no other explanation besides alien abduction, so let the reader
    figure it out....

    --
    David
    You never have to change anything you got up in the middle of the night
    to write.
    -- Saul Bellow

  9. Re: <none>Q

    SINNER wrote:

    > It is the only possible thing that could have happened for you not to see
    > the asterisk,


    Wrong, There is more than ONE possibility, one, I did not see it ANOTHER IS
    A GLITCH. As I stated to you OVER and OVER, I was using BETA software
    installed as an update to beta software that was installed over production
    software I had been using earlier. Anyone that knows anything about
    software knows that there are glitches that happen that are so difficult to
    reproduce that they never reach the level of a bug report. Your lie about
    there only being one possibility is just that, A 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.

  10. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > You could have at least waited until I had typed up my reply, and if not,
    > then kindly refrain from libelous rhetoric.


    Wow, everyone that disagrees with you is hurling "libelous rhetoric". You
    are acting like a paranoid FREAK. You see libelous rhetoric coming from
    EVERYONE!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2