Re: <none> - Mandrake

This is a discussion on Re: <none> - Mandrake ; On Saturday 14 October 2006 05:42, Bit Twister stood up and addressed the masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...: > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:25:16 -0700, left_coast wrote: >> Bit Twister wrote: >> >>>> PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Re: <none>

  1. Re: <none>

    On Saturday 14 October 2006 05:42, Bit Twister stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:25:16 -0700, left_coast wrote:
    >> Bit Twister wrote:
    >>
    >>>> PROVE WHAT THEY KNEW AND NOT KNOW. How can you claim to know what
    >>>> somebody else knows? bwhaahahahahahahha,
    >>>
    >>> Let's see, I do not have to prove what they know or not know and fake
    >>> laughter in a lame attempt to humiliate or hurt. Getting desperate I
    >>> see.
    >>>

    >>
    >> If you have no proof, then you lie when you make claims about what they
    >> know. Thanks for admitting you are a liar.

    >
    > Hehe, just gets funnier and funnier.
    >
    > Inject some crap statement
    > "If you have no proof,"
    > to pose your lie
    > "then you lie when you make claims about what they know."
    > and close with another a bigger lie
    > "Thanks for admitting you are a liar."
    >
    > A complete set of lies from the get go.


    Typical for paranoid schizophrenics. Twist the facts, bend the truth,
    totally disregard the meaning of anything and blend it all into something
    of which only you - i.e. the schizophrenic, in this case Matt - can still
    make any sense.

    The guy doesn't even understand (or speak) colloquial English... All is
    allowed for as long as _he_ feels good about it. Speaking of
    egotripping...

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  2. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> A complete set of lies from the get go.

    >
    > Typical for paranoid schizophrenics.


    Yes, that is what Bit and you are.

    --
    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 06:39, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> A complete set of lies from the get go.

    >>
    >> Typical for paranoid schizophrenics.

    >
    > Yes, that is what Bit and you are.


    For the record: I was found to suffer from Asperger's Syndrome by a
    psychiatrist, and I was found *not* to be schizophrenic by _two_
    psychiatrists who had nothing to do with one another.

    I had requested this analysis myself, because autism and schizophrenia have
    social difficulties in common as a symptom - albeit that the manifestations
    of such social difficulties are quite different.


    One of the big differences between autism and schizophrenia is that autistic
    people know that they're different somehow, while schizophrenics refuse to
    accept that they are.

    Or to put it in just a few words: I am *neurotic.* *You* are *psychotic.*
    Big difference.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  4. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:



    --
    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>

    On Sunday 15 October 2006 09:19, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >


    Like you snip out everything you can't refute, right? Anything for your
    cause, huh, Matt?

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  6. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >>

    >
    > Like you snip out everything you can't refute, right? *Anything for your
    > cause, huh, Matt?


    You are right, I can NOT refute your HATE.

    --
    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>

    On Sunday 15 October 2006 19:26, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>>

    >>
    >> Like you snip out everything you can't refute, right? *Anything for your
    >> cause, huh, Matt?

    >
    > You are right, I can NOT refute your HATE.


    Told you a thousand times already, Matt...: I don't hate you. But keep it
    up and I will eventually. Somehow, you make that very easy for people.
    And that's about the only thing you make easy for them. You're an absolute
    pest at everything else.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  8. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > You are right, I can NOT refute your HATE.
    >
    > Told you a thousand times already, Matt...: I don't hate you.


    You also said neutral meant you could come to the defense of someone,
    something that is completely false and showed that you were NOT being
    neutral because you were in deed coming to someones defense, you would
    NEVER have had to claim that you could come to the defense of someone and
    still be neutral otherwise.

    In other words, why should I believe the words of a 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.

  9. Re: <none>

    On Sunday 15 October 2006 22:55, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> You are right, I can NOT refute your HATE.
    >>
    >> Told you a thousand times already, Matt...: I don't hate you.

    >
    > You also said neutral meant you could come to the defense of someone,
    > something that is completely false and showed that you were NOT being
    > neutral because you were in deed coming to someones defense, you would
    > NEVER have had to claim that you could come to the defense of someone and
    > still be neutral otherwise.
    >
    > In other words, why should I believe the words of a liar?


    That above paragraph does not mean, confirm or otherwise provide evidence
    for your conclusion, since it grammatically makes no sense to anyone other
    than you. If it even *makes* sense to you at all, that is...

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  10. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> You also said neutral meant you could come to the defense of someone,
    >> something that is completely false and showed that you were NOT being
    >> neutral because you were in deed coming to someones defense, you would
    >> NEVER have had to claim that you could come to the defense of someone and
    >> still be neutral otherwise.
    >>
    >> In other words, why should I believe the words of a liar?

    >
    > That above paragraph does not mean, confirm or otherwise provide evidence
    > for your conclusion, since it grammatically makes no sense to anyone other
    > than you. *If it even makes sense to you at all, that is...


    I don't care, you made false claims about what it means to be neutral, as I
    pointed out in another thread. You were caught in a lie and you are not
    even man enough to admit 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>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 02:27, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> You also said neutral meant you could come to the defense of someone,
    >>> something that is completely false and showed that you were NOT being
    >>> neutral because you were in deed coming to someones defense, you would
    >>> NEVER have had to claim that you could come to the defense of someone
    >>> and still be neutral otherwise.
    >>>
    >>> In other words, why should I believe the words of a liar?

    >>
    >> That above paragraph does not mean, confirm or otherwise provide evidence
    >> for your conclusion, since it grammatically makes no sense to anyone
    >> other than you. *If it even makes sense to you at all, that is...

    >
    > I don't care, you made false claims about what it means to be neutral, as
    > I pointed out in another thread.


    No, I did not. But unlike you, I am verbally proficient. And unlike you, I
    do not have any malicious intentions.

    > You were caught in a lie [...


    No, I was not. You on the other hand have been caught in too many lies to
    even make a list. Just look at the lies you posted about me on /C.O.L.A./

    > ...] and you are not even man enough to admit it.


    As I said before, my ego is of no importance in anything I write here. This
    naturally also implicates that if I do make a mistake, I'd be more than
    willing to admit it. It's called humility. And that makes me far more of
    a man than you'd be.

    Who was it again who is full of hatred, Matt? Wait, let me guess... Who
    would be the person pedantically posting a reply to every debate in which
    he is involved until the other guy backs out? Who is the one accusing
    people of things but diverting the subject away from his own flaws? Who's
    the opportunist pedantically attacking a number of selected individuals
    such as Bit Twister or myself? Who is it that types in all uppercase and
    raves on so badly that no person proficient at English would still be able
    to make sense from what he wrote?

    I rest my case.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  12. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> I don't care, you made false claims about what it means to be neutral, as
    >> I pointed out in another thread.

    >
    > No, I did not.


    That is a LIE. You claimed that defending someone was being neutral, it
    simply is not. At least not by a dictionary definition of neutrality, but
    hey, why would YOU care about and authoritative source like a dictionary?
    Caring about the ACCURATE definition of a word would mean you are
    articulate and accurate, right?

    --
    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>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 18:53, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>> I don't care, you made false claims about what it means to be neutral,
    >>> as I pointed out in another thread.

    >>
    >> No, I did not.

    >
    > That is a LIE. You claimed that defending someone was being neutral, it
    > simply is not. At least not by a dictionary definition of neutrality, but
    > hey, why would YOU care about and authoritative source like a dictionary?


    Dude, I have already stated my stance on this elsewhere. I am really not in
    any mood - nor do I have the intention - to repeat myself over and over and
    over again all over this thread, just because *you* like to fill up our
    newsfeeds with your redundant manifestations of hostility and communicative
    impediments.

    > Caring about the ACCURATE definition of a word would mean you are
    > articulate and accurate, right?


    "Being articulate" means "being very expressive". If you want to assault me
    on my knowledge of the English language and/or my grammar and spelling,
    then at least get your facts straight. Not that *you* should be the one
    lecturing me on any interpersonal language, for that matter.

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  14. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> That is a LIE. You claimed that defending someone was being neutral, it
    >> simply is not. At least not by a dictionary definition of neutrality, but
    >> hey, why would YOU care about and authoritative source like a dictionary?

    >
    > Dude, I have already stated my stance on this elsewhere. *I am really not
    > in any mood - nor do I have the intention - to repeat myself over and over
    > and over again all over this thread, just because you like to fill up our
    > newsfeeds with your redundant manifestations of hostility and
    > communicative impediments.
    >



    Dude, you "stance" proves NOTHING. I documented your claims about
    neutrality. I even disproved one of your claims about neutrality with a
    DICTIONARY definition! You lied about neutrality, PERIOD.

    --
    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:

    > "Being articulate" means "being very expressive".


    Guess it's time to use another authoritative source to see if Aragorn is
    actually as accurate as he claims to be, again a definition of articulate
    from Webster's:

    "Distinctly uttered; spoken so as to be intelligible; characterized by
    division into words and syllables; as, articulate speech, sounds, words."

    Do note the word INTELLIGIBLE, your made up definitions of words makes you
    unintelligible, thus inarticulate. At least that is what articulate means
    according to AN AUTHORITATIVE 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.

  16. Re: <none>

    On Tuesday 17 October 2006 19:36, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> "Being articulate" means "being very expressive".

    >
    > Guess it's time to use another authoritative source to see if Aragorn is
    > actually as accurate as he claims to be, again a definition of articulate
    > from Webster's:
    >
    > "Distinctly uttered; spoken so as to be intelligible; characterized by
    > division into words and syllables; as, articulate speech, sounds, words."
    >
    > Do note the word INTELLIGIBLE, your made up definitions of words makes you
    > unintelligible, thus inarticulate. At least that is what articulate means
    > according to AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE.


    *This* is where I got _my_ definition, bully boy...:

    http://dict.die.net/articulate/

    Now what were you saying of dictionaries?

    --
    With kind regards,

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

  17. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    > On Tuesday 17 October 2006 19:36, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    > masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:
    >
    >> Aragorn wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Being articulate" means "being very expressive".

    >>
    >> Guess it's time to use another authoritative source to see if Aragorn is
    >> actually as accurate as he claims to be, again a definition of articulate
    >> from Webster's:
    >>
    >> "Distinctly uttered; spoken so as to be intelligible; characterized by
    >> division into words and syllables; as, articulate speech, sounds, words."
    >>
    >> Do note the word INTELLIGIBLE, your made up definitions of words makes
    >> you unintelligible, thus inarticulate. At least that is what articulate
    >> means according to AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE.

    >
    > *This* is where I got _my_ definition, bully boy...:
    >
    > http://dict.die.net/articulate/
    >
    > Now what were you saying of dictionaries?
    >


    1: expressing yourself easily or characterized by clear
    expressive language

    A: "expressing yourself easily" using 700+ words to express something that
    could and probably should be expressed in a line of 10 words or less is NOT
    expressing yourself easily.

    B: Your overly verbose explanations of concepts that should stated in a
    single sentence makes the concepts less that "clear" so your verbose posts
    are what make you articulate.

    C: Your inaccurate use of words like neutral and stalking also make your
    posts less than "clear"

    Even by the definition YOU posted, you are not articulate.


    --
    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