Legal position of h**m*ts



Sandy wrote:
>
> You will reach the age of puberty soon. By then, my filter will have
> expired.


That would be nice but then I'm with George Carlin:

"The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean, life is
tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you get at the end of it?
A Death! What's that, a bonus? I think the life cycle is all backwards.
You should die first, get it out of the way. Then you live in an old age
home. You get kicked out when you're too young, you get a gold watch,
you go to work. You work forty years until you're young enough to enjoy
your retirement. You do drugs, alcohol, you party, you get ready for
high school. You go to grade school, you become a kid, you play, you
have no responsibilities, you become a little baby, you go back into the
womb, you spend your last nine months floating..........and you finish
off as an orgasm."

But you're right, even then it will be a long time.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Sorni wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Sandy wrote:
>>> You don't get me lying. I leave that entirely to you.

>> No? I thought you'd apologised to me once today for that already. Ah I
>> get it, its one of those logical conundrums like "I always lie"

>
> You do realize he was addressing that to Carl The Smarmy Liar, right?
>


Sorry I didn't realise this was a private e-mail exchange, I thought it
was a public newsgroup and a statement that "You don't get me lying" was
just too tempting to leave ;-)


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
>>
>> You will reach the age of puberty soon. By then, my filter will have
>> expired.

>
> That would be nice but then I'm with George Carlin:
>
> "The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean, life is
> tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you get at the end of
> it? A Death! What's that, a bonus? I think the life cycle is all
> backwards. You should die first, get it out of the way. Then you live
> in an old age home. You get kicked out when you're too young, you get
> a gold watch, you go to work. You work forty years until you're young
> enough to enjoy your retirement. You do drugs, alcohol, you party,
> you get ready for high school. You go to grade school, you become a
> kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a little
> baby, you go back into the womb, you spend your last nine months
> floating..........and you finish off as an orgasm."


If I still smoked, I'd put it out after that.

Bill "it almost made sense" S.
 
Sorni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:


>> Or are you just lying?


> I just posted your most recent lie, Gazoo. Why don't you explain how
> I "cunningly mis-spelled" (sic) Alan BRAGGINS' name. Please!


{blowing tumbleweed wave file goes here}
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>> You don't get me lying. I leave that entirely to you.
>>> No? I thought you'd apologised to me once today for that already.
>>> Ah I get it, its one of those logical conundrums like "I always lie"

>>
>> You do realize he was addressing that to Carl The Smarmy Liar, right?
>>

>
> Sorry I didn't realise this was a private e-mail exchange, I thought
> it was a public newsgroup and a statement that "You don't get me
> lying" was just too tempting to leave ;-)


As long as you know it wasn't directed at you (like your reply implied).

Whatever...
 
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:56:27 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>If I still smoked, I'd put it out after that.


For the intelligent reader Dr Raven's post should be readily
understood. For the confused, it is trivially easy to verify that, he
is well past puberty. As, I believe, are his children.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:42:13 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:59:48 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't get me lying. I leave that entirely to you.
>>>>
>>>> No? I thought you'd apologised to me once today for that already.
>>>> Ah I get it, its one of those logical conundrums like "I always lie"
>>>
>>> You do realize he was addressing that to Carl The Smarmy Liar, right?

>>
>> Why not join Sandy in his repeated promises to provide evidence of all
>> those lies that I tell?

>
>I was merely telling Tony that Sandy's remark was dierected to you, not to
>him.
>
>> You do have something specific in mind, don't you?
>>
>> Or are you just lying?

>
>I just posted your most recent lie, Gazoo. Why don't you explain how I
>"cunningly mis-spelled" (sic) Alan BRAGGINS' name. Please!


Most recent? Please, give us even more earth-shaking examples!
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> For the intelligent reader Dr Raven's post should be readily
> understood. For the confused, it is trivially easy to verify that, he
> is well past puberty. As, I believe, are his children.
>


Oi Chapman, I was enjoying the fantasy!

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:

> davek a écrit :
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> You two guys are lawyers, right?

> >
> > Have you not yet learnt that all lawyers are masters in obfuscation?
> > They go to special schools where they teach them the art. It's what
> > they are paid obscene amounts of money to do.
> >
> > d.

> Envy is not a virtue. :)


Four cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice.

Seven canonical hours: mantins & lauds, prime,
tierce, sext, nones, vespers, complin.

Seven deadly sins: envy, gluttony,
anger, lust, sloth, avarice, pride.

--
Michael Press
 
in message <[email protected]>, Sandy
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Tony Raven a écrit :
>> Sandy wrote:
>>> You don't get me lying. I leave that entirely to you.

>>
>> No? I thought you'd apologised to me once today for that already. Ah
>> I get it, its one of those logical conundrums like "I always lie"
>>

> No, I did not lie. How base of you to suggest that.


You /did/ lie. You explicitly accused Tony of writing something that he
did not write. That was a lie. When he pointed out that he had not
written it, you repeated the calumny. That was a lie, too. You have
apologised, but apologising doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means it
did happened and you've acknowledged your wrongdoing. You can't just
turn around and deny it.

> Do you know that Fogel lies ? Pay attention ...


I've debated with Carl on a number of groups for number of years. He is a
nimble and witty gadfly, but I've never known him be anything but
scrupulously polite and accurate. Would you care to back up your
allegation with chapter and verse? Or are you unable to?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
 
in message <[email protected]>, Sorni
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Sorni wrote:
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>> You don't get me lying. I leave that entirely to you.
>>>> No? I thought you'd apologised to me once today for that already.
>>>> Ah I get it, its one of those logical conundrums like "I always lie"
>>>
>>> You do realize he was addressing that to Carl The Smarmy Liar, right?
>>>

>>
>> Sorry I didn't realise this was a private e-mail exchange, I thought
>> it was a public newsgroup and a statement that "You don't get me
>> lying" was just too tempting to leave ;-)

>
> As long as you know it wasn't directed at you (like your reply
> implied).


If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

This is a newsgroup. All around the world, some hundreds of people are
reading this, and some dozens will take part in the discussion sooner or
later. If you want a private conversation, take it to email.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
There's nae Gods, an there's precious few heroes
but there's plenty on the dole in th Land o th Leal;
And it's time now, tae sweep the future clear o
th lies o a past that we know wis never real.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> take it to email.
>


Please!

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

My veal cutlet tried to beat the **** out of my cup of coffee...
the coffee just wasn't strong enough to defend himself. (Tom
Waits)
 
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:59:48 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tony Raven wrote:
>> Sandy wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't get me lying. I leave that entirely to you.

>>
>> No? I thought you'd apologised to me once today for that already. Ah I
>> get it, its one of those logical conundrums like "I always lie"

>
>You do realize he was addressing that to Carl The Smarmy Liar, right?


Sorni, I hope you understand that in usenet various participants can
read what you wrote and chime in. It's a public discussion and very
different than a private email dialogue.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:59:48 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> Sandy wrote:


>>>> You don't get me lying. I leave that entirely to you.


>>> No? I thought you'd apologised to me once today for that already.
>>> Ah I get it, its one of those logical conundrums like "I always lie"


>> You do realize he was addressing that to Carl The Smarmy Liar, right?


> Sorni, I hope you understand that in usenet various participants can
> read what you wrote and chime in. It's a public discussion and very
> different than a private email dialogue.


Bob: "Your posts sound a little sad today, Sally. You OK?"

Fred: "Not bad, thanks. Nice of you to ask."

HTH, BS
 
Sorni wrote:

<Oh no, I've snipped something important and butted in on a private
conversation without providing my full personal history. And anyway, who
am I?>

> Bob: "Your posts sound a little sad today, Sally. You OK?"
>
> Fred: "Not bad, thanks. Nice of you to ask."


Bill: Windy today, isn't it.

****: No, its Thursday.

Ron: So am I. Lets all go and have a nice cup of tea.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage
 
Jim Price wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
> <Oh no, I've snipped something important and butted in on a private
> conversation without providing my full personal history. And anyway,
> who am I?>
>
>> Bob: "Your posts sound a little sad today, Sally. You OK?"
>>
>> Fred: "Not bad, thanks. Nice of you to ask."

>
> Bill: Windy today, isn't it.
>
> ****: No, its Thursday.
>
> Ron: So am I. Lets all go and have a nice cup of tea.


Purple, with ruffles.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Sandy
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > Tony Raven a écrit :
> >> Sandy wrote:
> >>> You don't get me lying. I leave that entirely to you.
> >>
> >> No? I thought you'd apologised to me once today for that already. Ah
> >> I get it, its one of those logical conundrums like "I always lie"
> >>

> > No, I did not lie. How base of you to suggest that.

>
> You /did/ lie. You explicitly accused Tony of writing something that he
> did not write. That was a lie. When he pointed out that he had not
> written it, you repeated the calumny. That was a lie, too. You have
> apologised, but apologising doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means it
> did happened and you've acknowledged your wrongdoing. You can't just
> turn around and deny it.


He also tried to blame the mistake on a "naughty" excision by a mystery
snipper. As far as I can see the mystery snipper does not exist. Google
Groups shows the quoting was perfectly clear and conventional. Never
mind. Next time he derides a hapless victim for their lack of
comprehension or reading ability we can always post a link back to this
thread. I think he's wise to post under a name that doesn't make him
readily identifiable to his colleagues and clients.

> > Do you know that Fogel lies ? Pay attention ...

>
> I've debated with Carl on a number of groups for number of years. He is a
> nimble and witty gadfly, but I've never known him be anything but
> scrupulously polite and accurate. Would you care to back up your
> allegation with chapter and verse? Or are you unable to?


Absolutely. I know Carl's pixels well and I would be absolutely
astonished if anyone can point to a single verifiable intentional
untruth in any of his numerous postings.

--
Dave...
 
Sandy wrote:

> Fogel, you do not tell the truth all the time. You lie. There. Sue me.
> Most folks already knew this - not the UK crowd. But that's the story.
> My record is happily populated with judges yelling at me, throwing
> things at me, etc.
> It is not strewn with failure, Mr. Former English teacher.
> You lie and confabulate. I'll happily point to the example which
> allowed me to move you from the innocently eccentric to the
> pathologically incapable of addressing reality.
> Another time, though. Makes the saliva flow ...


Happily point to it now. Time to put up or shut up.

--
Dave...
 
dkahn400 wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
>
>> Fogel, you do not tell the truth all the time. You lie. There. Sue
>> me. Most folks already knew this - not the UK crowd. But that's the
>> story. My record is happily populated with judges yelling at me,
>> throwing things at me, etc.
>> It is not strewn with failure, Mr. Former English teacher.
>> You lie and confabulate. I'll happily point to the example which
>> allowed me to move you from the innocently eccentric to the
>> pathologically incapable of addressing reality.
>> Another time, though. Makes the saliva flow ...

>
> Happily point to it now. Time to put up or shut up.


I tried that with Fogel AND "jtayor". Neither stepped up.