Re: <none> - Mandrake

This is a discussion on Re: <none> - Mandrake ; On Saturday 14 October 2006 03:16, left_coast stood up and addressed the masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...: > Bit Twister wrote: > >> I was not deceiving anyone. > > 1: PROVE that you did not deceive anyone. No, *you* ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: <none>

  1. Re: <none>

    On Saturday 14 October 2006 03:16, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >> I was not deceiving anyone.

    >
    > 1: PROVE that you did not deceive anyone.


    No, *you* *prove* that he *was,* or else you better shut up. And you might
    as well shut up, because your claims are by nature false and deceiving.

    In our Western legal system, a man is innocent until proven guilty, and with
    notably _you_ as a prosecutor, there's very little credibility to your
    case.

    Perhaps you should apply for a job at Microsoft's P.R. department. That
    would be right up your alley.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  2. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> 1: PROVE that you did not deceive anyone.

    >
    > No, you prove that he *was,*


    I never made the claim that he was. I only claimed that he lied. And I
    posted a definition from a dictionary that showed a lie does not require
    deceit. You know, a DICTIONARY, the reputable source that you ignore
    because it disagrees with what you say.

    --
    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.

  3. Re: <none>

    On Sunday 15 October 2006 06:43, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> 1: PROVE that you did not deceive anyone.

    >>
    >> No, you prove that he *was,*

    >
    > I never made the claim that he was. I only claimed that he lied. And I
    > posted a definition from a dictionary that showed a lie does not require
    > deceit. You know, a DICTIONARY, the reputable source that you ignore
    > because it disagrees with what you say.


    Would that 1917 dictionary happen to be the same reputable source you pull
    your spelling and grammar from? If so, that would explain at
    least /something.../

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  4. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > I never made the claim that he was. I only claimed that he lied. And I
    >> posted a definition from a dictionary that showed a lie does not require
    >> deceit. You know, a DICTIONARY, the reputable source that you ignore
    >> because it disagrees with what you say.

    >
    > Would that 1917 dictionary happen to be the same reputable source you pull
    > your spelling and grammar from? *If so, that would explain at
    > least /something.../

    ^^^^^^^ I see you admit your evil


    Dude, that was when it was FIRST INCLUDED. Don't even know how a dictionary
    works. It is still a current definition. But why would I expect YOU to
    know how to use a REPUTABLE source.

    --
    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.

+ Reply to Thread