Re: <none> - Mandrake

This is a discussion on Re: <none> - Mandrake ; On Saturday 14 October 2006 03:32, left_coast stood up and addressed the masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...: > Bit Twister wrote: > >>> Which is what you do when you claim it is a failure. >> >> That is a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Re: <none>

  1. Re: <none>

    On Saturday 14 October 2006 03:32, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >>> Which is what you do when you claim it is a failure.

    >>
    >> That is a lie. The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post.

    >
    > PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what somebody
    > else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha, how low will you go to try to paint ME as
    > the bad guy here? How many minds will you claim you can read???


    Just like you can read Bit Twister's mind and ascertain that he was
    deliberately misleading the OP? Funny how you continuously project your
    own vices onto others and then make up lies in order to call them liars.

    There has never been a greater liar on this newsgroup - Wintrolls not
    included - than you, Matt. And we *all* know that.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  2. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what
    >> somebody else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha, how low will you go to try to
    >> paint ME as the bad guy here? How many minds will you claim you can
    >> read???

    >
    > Just like you can read Bit Twister's mind and ascertain that he was
    > deliberately misleading the OP?


    Nope If you read what I said, I said:

    "Anyone telling you that the test failed is a deliberate liar."

    Again, PROOF that you make false claims about me to the point where there is
    no other explanation than you are a deliberate LIAR.

    --
    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 06:38, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what
    >>> somebody else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha, how low will you go to try to
    >>> paint ME as the bad guy here? How many minds will you claim you can
    >>> read???

    >>
    >> Just like you can read Bit Twister's mind and ascertain that he was
    >> deliberately misleading the OP?

    >
    > Nope If you read what I said, I said:
    >
    > "Anyone telling you that the test failed is a deliberate liar."
    >
    > Again, PROOF that you make false claims about me to the point where there
    > is no other explanation than you are a deliberate LIAR.


    There was more innuendo towards Bit Twister in that post of yours than there
    was innuendo in Bit Twister's reply to the OP that the test *really* had
    failed.

    There is another explanation than that I would be a liar, you know. Namely,
    there is the explanation that *you* are a *deliberate* and
    *confrontational* liar, that you are unable to comprehend colloquial
    English and abstract concepts such as humor, and that you are severely
    delusional and pedantic up to a point where you've already long passed the
    point of still being funny.

    I think both your and my track records will easily point out which
    explanation is the correct one.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  4. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> Again, PROOF that you make false claims about me to the point where there
    >> is no other explanation than you are a deliberate LIAR.

    >
    > There was more innuendo towards Bit Twister in that post of yours than
    > there was innuendo in Bit Twister's reply to the OP that the test really
    > had failed.


    INNUENDO? But hey, you have shown a bias against me for a LONG time, claims
    about innuendo from a BIASED person are WORTHLESS. You have already show a
    willingness to redefine terms to claim your bias is really neutrality.

    --
    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.

  5. Re: <none>

    left_coast wrote:

    >> There was more innuendo towards Bit Twister in that post of yours than
    >> there was innuendo in Bit Twister's reply to the OP that the test really
    >> had failed.

    >
    > INNUENDO? But hey, you have shown a bias against me for a LONG time,


    Um, your claim about a KLUDGE?????? I'll bet you think that was my bias
    against you. But honestly, my issues with me started when YOU tried to
    claim I was wrong about the use of #! and it turned out that you did not
    even know how shell scripts actually worked. Before that, I actually
    RESPECTED you (God, how naive I was). But when you claimed that running a
    script from a command line was the same as putting a script in a file and
    running that file by the file name. It is, of course, is NOT. Since then, I
    have been confronting you on your errors. Your mistake is thinking that
    confronting someone on their errors means showing bias are the same thing.

    --
    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