Legal position of h**m*ts

[dkahn400]

Sandy wrote:
> [email protected] a écrit :
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1aec8bc885658c92
> >
> > Incidentally, that thing above is called a link. It's a clever way to
> > support what you say and much more effective than talking about
> > drooling and promising again and again to get around to providing
> > evidence.
>
> I'm not pressed, Fogel. Keep looking. Or did you want to please your
> new sandbox buddies ?

Why on earth would he be searching his past postings, whether they
contain lies or not? If you've got a complaint about one or several of
them, post the links and explain how they condemn him. No-one is
impressed by this posturing that Ozark, and now you, seem to go in for.

--
Dave...

 

[Sorni]

dkahn400 wrote:
> 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.

Ask him about my "cunning mis-spelling (sic) of Alan Baggins' name". Only
two problems: his name is in fact Alan Braggins; and regardless I never
"spelled" it at all (attribution auto-generated by newsreader, accurately of
course).

Now, more than a week later, he claimed to have "lied on purpose" to be
"ironic". I say BS, but whatever...

Only person slimier at this point is "jtaylor", who has repeatedly said or
implied that I started some thread about "deviant sexual behavior" on the
part of some mystery poster. After at least 10 such accusations, I have
demanded an explanation or apology. Still waiting, of course.

Yes, there are some vile liars on this newsgroup.

 

[dkahn400]

Sorni wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you be more
specific?

--
Dave...

 

[dkahn400]

Sorni wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Ask him about my "cunning mis-spelling (sic) of Alan Baggins' name". Only
> two problems: his name is in fact Alan Braggins; and regardless I never
> "spelled" it at all (attribution auto-generated by newsreader, accurately of
> course).

Reading the post where Carl originally said that it appears to me he
made a simple reading error. You could simply have replied that you'd
quoted Alan's name correctly and scored a small point. Why should you
think Carl would lie about the post he was immediately answering? It
makes no sense at all.

> Now, more than a week later, he claimed to have "lied on purpose" to be
> "ironic". I say BS, but whatever...

The threads have got a bit convoluted. Could you oblige me by posting a
link to the specific post you are referring to?

> Only person slimier at this point is "jtaylor", who has repeatedly said or
> implied that I started some thread about "deviant sexual behavior" on the
> part of some mystery poster. After at least 10 such accusations, I have
> demanded an explanation or apology. Still waiting, of course.
>
> Yes, there are some vile liars on this newsgroup.

I'm sure of it, but I don't think Carl's one of them.

--
Dave...

 

[Sorni]

dkahn400 wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you be more
> specific?

They both lied repeatedly and declined opportunity after opportunity to back
them up, explain them, admit them or apologize for them. (I believe I
answered another of your posts with specifics.)

 

[dkahn400]

Sorni wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:
> > Sorni wrote:

> >> I tried that with Fogel AND "jtayor". Neither stepped up.
> >
> > Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you be more
> > specific?
>
> They both lied repeatedly and declined opportunity after opportunity to back
> them up, explain them, admit them or apologize for them. (I believe I
> answered another of your posts with specifics.)

Not really, which is why I have replied to that reply with a request
for more specifc specifics. In huge threads like these it is virtually
impossible to identity posts by references such as "I asked this" and
"he replied that". This is a bit like schoolchildren shouting "he
started it", "no I didn't, you did", "no I didn't ..." and so on ad
infinitum.

If you can post links with a commentary making it possible to follow
the thread and identify the specific lies in their context, you will at
least have a chance of making a your case, if you have one.

--
Dave...

 

[Sorni]

dkahn400 wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> dkahn400 wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Ask him about my "cunning mis-spelling (sic) of Alan Baggins' name".
>> Only two problems: his name is in fact Alan Braggins; and
>> regardless I never "spelled" it at all (attribution auto-generated
>> by newsreader, accurately of course).
>
> Reading the post where Carl originally said that it appears to me he
> made a simple reading error. You could simply have replied that you'd
> quoted Alan's name correctly and scored a small point. Why should you
> think Carl would lie about the post he was immediately answering? It
> makes no sense at all.

I DID THAT. REPEATEDLY. You obviously didn't read the entire thread or the
/many/ exchanges. (I agree it makes no sense which is why I /immediately/
asked him WTH he meant. He completely ignored me for a while, and then kept
making smug "I'm right" comments while totally refusing to own up to his
lie, error, or...???)

>> Now, more than a week later, he claimed to have "lied on purpose" to
>> be "ironic". I say BS, but whatever...

> The threads have got a bit convoluted. Could you oblige me by posting
> a link to the specific post you are referring to?

As you say, there are many now.

I found the original exchange a few days ago and posted a link to it.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....-spells+Baggins&rnum=1&hl=en#51e3cf4aef1ff726

I practically begged him to explain what I was missing -- chance to
embarrass me and all -- and after more than a week he finally weaseled that
it was all intentional and ironic. (I don't have time to find that exchange
now; it's still buried in the threads somewhere, fairly recently.)


>> Only person slimier at this point is "jtaylor", who has repeatedly
>> said or implied that I started some thread about "deviant sexual
>> behavior" on the part of some mystery poster. After at least 10
>> such accusations, I have demanded an explanation or apology. Still
>> waiting, of course.
>>
>> Yes, there are some vile liars on this newsgroup.
>
> I'm sure of it, but I don't think Carl's one of them.

Carl is quite bright. He's also a two-faced weasel IMO. He'll smile to
your face and bury a knife in your back.

But that's OK. He uses lots of flowery prose!

 

[jtaylor]

"dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sandy wrote:
>
> > I took it on blind trust that the excisions done by the post, to which I
> > replied directly, were accurate. You have already received my
> > correction, I trust. So, apologies offered, and the original comment
> > directed to the person who wrote what I replied to. Happy to oblige.
>
>
> Pete white replied to Tony's original post, quoting a portion of it and
> adding a comment of his own. Jtaylor replied to pete white's post,
> quoting it in full and likewise adding his own comment. It was this
> post that you were replying to, so I'm still a little puzzled as to
> what exactly is this "excision" you are still complaining of, and who
> it was who made it.
>

Some people have trouble counting to two when they see ">"'s.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] a écrit :
> > On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:40:32 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Tony Raven a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Sandy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I took it on blind trust that the excisions done by the post, to
> >>>> which I replied directly, were accurate.
> >>>>
> >>> Always dangerous to use blind trust over checking the original sources
> >>> - a bit like the helmet debate ;-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> This is usenet. No client is paying me to check all cites. It's just
> >> not worth it.
> >> You don't get anything more from me on that.
> >>
> >
> > We never get anything from you worth paying for in the first place.
> >
> You don't get me lying. I leave that entirely to you.

Wouldn't that be Ozark (hint - see the completely whacko post titled "an
open letter to carlfogel" or something like that in r.b.t.).

 

[jtaylor]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?
>

He's been asked that several times now - all we get are more baseless
accusations.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> Only person slimier at this point is "jtaylor", who has repeatedly said or
> implied that I started some thread about "deviant sexual behavior" on the
> part of some mystery poster.

Not true.

I merely asked you if you agreed that the insults that you and Ozark have
hulred about with abandon were abusive.

You have so agreed.

I note that the abandon has not dimished in any way.