PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[Damian]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a1da09$0$56385$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com...

Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

It does make you wrong. 'cos you are poop came out of him. So, you do need
to find your own answers in
the cyberspace.

 

[Damian]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a22067$0$32950$b1db1813$46decd27@news.astraweb.com...

Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

OTOH, to be fair, Roddles has his spurious good moments, with good
discussion/contribution. One such episode was just recently in another
group (which I won't mention to protect its audience, and no, I wasn't
involved, just watching). So there you go.

And have you noticed that in the main the good discussions are with
sensible people?

And you are not one of them. You're just Rod's poop still attached to his
bum via a string.

 

[F Murtz]

Damian wrote:

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a1da09$0$56385$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com...
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

It does make you wrong. 'cos you are poop came out of him. So, you do need
to find your own answers in
the cyberspace.


Are you on some sort of drug, as your posts are a bit incompressible?

 

[Rod Speed]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a25866$0$19793$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com...

Damian wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a1da09$0$56385$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com...
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves
the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because
you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your
eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

It does make you wrong. 'cos you are poop came out of him. So, you do
need
to find your own answers in
the cyberspace.


Are you on some sort of drug,

Yep, he's always been a druggy.

> as your posts are a bit incompressible?

 

[Frank Slootweg]

F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Non-response duly noted.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

Non-response duly noted.

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

Sigh! In the cases where he resorts to foot-stamping and insulting, he
*is* wrong, *knows* it and does *not* have *any* counter-argument.

In case you don't get it, with 'foot-stamping', I mean the
foot-stamping of a three-year old. I.e. *all* he does, is say "You're
wrong/stupid/<whatever>!" without saying *why* the other party is wrong,
and he does that because he *doesn't* have a counter-argument.

So I repeat: If you haven't seen that - unsubstantiated foot-stamping
and insulting -, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes closed.

From your response, we can safely conclude the latter.

OTOH, to be fair, Roddles has his spurious good moments, with good
discussion/contribution. One such episode was just recently in another
group (which I won't mention to protect its audience, and no, I wasn't
involved, just watching). So there you go.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

OTOH, to be fair, Roddles has his spurious good moments, with good
discussion/contribution. One such episode was just recently in another
group (which I won't mention to protect its audience, and no, I wasn't
involved, just watching). So there you go.

And have you noticed that in the main the good discussions are with
sensible people?

There are very, very few good discussions in the first place. But no,
Roddles has no excuse whatsoever that the quality of the discussion
mostly or even solely depends on the 'sensibility' of his
correspondents. Quite the contrary, he has many, many of these fights
with quite sensible people.

Bottom line: Roddles and Roddles alone is responsible for *his*
actions.

My advice: Let this rest. You have no case, no case at all. If you
want to help Roddles, then support him - if you think he's right - with
actual factual arguments in an actual factual discussion.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:d0fvucF64c1U1@mid.individual.net...

F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves
the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because
you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Non-response duly noted.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

Non-response duly noted.

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your
eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

Sigh! In the cases where he resorts to foot-stamping and insulting, he
*is* wrong, *knows* it and does *not* have *any* counter-argument.

You are just plain wrong, as always.

That happens when terminal fuckwits such as yourself desperately
attempt to bullshit your way out of your predicament, as always.

 

[felix_unger]

On 12-July-2015 1:07 PM, F Murtz wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

when he's wrong he goes into bully boy mode and hurls insults. he can't
stand to be contradicted. he always wants to belittle and put down
anyone who 'dares' to dispute what he says, which is why I don't bother
to, even when I know he's wrong. he gets off on arguments.

OTOH, to be fair, Roddles has his spurious good moments, with good
discussion/contribution. One such episode was just recently in another
group (which I won't mention to protect its audience, and no, I wasn't
involved, just watching). So there you go.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"When tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to cultural suicide" -Col. Allen West
http://thereligionofpeace.com
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/
http://pamelageller.com/
coming to a street near you!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html
Brigitte Gabriel's answer to 'peaceful' moslems.. http://tinyurl.com/brigitteGab
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President of the USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=56&v=QxzOVSMUrGM

 

[felix_unger]

On 13-July-2015 6:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples
In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

OTOH, to be fair, Roddles has his spurious good moments, with good
discussion/contribution. One such episode was just recently in another
group (which I won't mention to protect its audience, and no, I wasn't
involved, just watching). So there you go.

And have you noticed that in the main the good discussions are with
sensible people?
There are very, very few good discussions in the first place. But no,
Roddles has no excuse whatsoever that the quality of the discussion
mostly or even solely depends on the 'sensibility' of his
correspondents. Quite the contrary, he has many, many of these fights
with quite sensible people.

Bottom line: Roddles and Roddles alone is responsible for *his*
actions.

My advice: Let this rest. You have no case, no case at all. If you
want to help Roddles, then support him - if you think he's right - with
actual factual arguments in an actual factual discussion.

I agree with you

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"When tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to cultural suicide" -Col. Allen West
http://thereligionofpeace.com
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/
http://pamelageller.com/
coming to a street near you!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html
Brigitte Gabriel's answer to 'peaceful' moslems.. http://tinyurl.com/brigitteGab
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President of the USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=56&v=QxzOVSMUrGM

 

[felix_unger]

On 12-July-2015 7:51 PM, Damian wrote:

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a22067$0$32950$b1db1813$46decd27@news.astraweb.com...
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples
In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

OTOH, to be fair, Roddles has his spurious good moments, with good
discussion/contribution. One such episode was just recently in another
group (which I won't mention to protect its audience, and no, I wasn't
involved, just watching). So there you go.

And have you noticed that in the main the good discussions are with
sensible people?
And you are not one of them. You're just Rod's poop still attached to his
bum via a string.

LOL!

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"When tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to cultural suicide" -Col. Allen West
http://thereligionofpeace.com
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/
http://pamelageller.com/
coming to a street near you!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html
Brigitte Gabriel's answer to 'peaceful' moslems.. http://tinyurl.com/brigitteGab
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President of the USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=56&v=QxzOVSMUrGM

 

[felix_unger]

On 12-July-2015 6:08 PM, F Murtz wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

OTOH, to be fair, Roddles has his spurious good moments, with good
discussion/contribution. One such episode was just recently in another
group (which I won't mention to protect its audience, and no, I wasn't
involved, just watching). So there you go.

And have you noticed that in the main the good discussions are with
sensible people?

no, only with ppl who wont disagree with him, and kiss asses. you have
to treat him with kid gloves if you want any semblance of a sensible
discussion, and never contradict him. little children are better
behaved. here's a little exercise for you.. try and find any discussion
where he has behaved like a normal, sensible, mature adult, and treated
ppl cordially and with respect.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"When tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to cultural suicide" -Col. Allen West
http://thereligionofpeace.com
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/
http://pamelageller.com/
coming to a street near you!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html
Brigitte Gabriel's answer to 'peaceful' moslems.. http://tinyurl.com/brigitteGab
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President of the USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=56&v=QxzOVSMUrGM

 

[F Murtz]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

OTOH, to be fair, Roddles has his spurious good moments, with good
discussion/contribution. One such episode was just recently in another
group (which I won't mention to protect its audience, and no, I wasn't
involved, just watching). So there you go.

And have you noticed that in the main the good discussions are with
sensible people?

There are very, very few good discussions in the first place. But no,
Roddles has no excuse whatsoever that the quality of the discussion
mostly or even solely depends on the 'sensibility' of his
correspondents. Quite the contrary, he has many, many of these fights
with quite sensible people.

Bottom line: Roddles and Roddles alone is responsible for *his*
actions.

My advice: Let this rest. You have no case, no case at all. If you
want to help Roddles, then support him - if you think he's right - with
actual factual arguments in an actual factual discussion.

Very difficult with no one able to come up with factual instances.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:d0fvucF64c1U1@mid.individual.net...
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves
the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because
you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Non-response duly noted.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

Non-response duly noted.

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your
eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

Sigh! In the cases where he resorts to foot-stamping and insulting, he
*is* wrong, *knows* it and does *not* have *any* counter-argument.

You are just plain wrong, as always.

QED.

That happens when terminal fuckwits such as yourself desperately
attempt to bullshit your way out of your predicament, as always.

QED.

Pathetic, dishonest, 'convenient', silent snip duly noted.

QED.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes
closed. Period.

OTOH, to be fair, Roddles has his spurious good moments, with good
discussion/contribution. One such episode was just recently in another
group (which I won't mention to protect its audience, and no, I wasn't
involved, just watching). So there you go.

And have you noticed that in the main the good discussions are with
sensible people?

There are very, very few good discussions in the first place. But no,
Roddles has no excuse whatsoever that the quality of the discussion
mostly or even solely depends on the 'sensibility' of his
correspondents. Quite the contrary, he has many, many of these fights
with quite sensible people.

Bottom line: Roddles and Roddles alone is responsible for *his*
actions.

My advice: Let this rest. You have no case, no case at all. If you
want to help Roddles, then support him - if you think he's right - with
actual factual arguments in an actual factual discussion.

Very difficult with no one able to come up with factual instances.

You were given several - actually thousands - of examples. You chose
to keep sticking your head in the sand. Your choice, not our problem.

But to add insult (literally) to injury, Roddles was kind enough to
give a demonstration in this very thread.

QED.

HTH, HAND, EOD, NC.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:d0ice1FocmvU1@mid.individual.net...

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:d0fvucF64c1U1@mid.individual.net...
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the
ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or
non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves
the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case
where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because
you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my
exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Non-response duly noted.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That
should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

Non-response duly noted.

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of
the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting
mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your
eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

Sigh! In the cases where he resorts to foot-stamping and insulting, he
*is* wrong, *knows* it and does *not* have *any* counter-argument.

You are just plain wrong, as always.

QED.

That happens when terminal fuckwits such as yourself desperately
attempt to bullshit your way out of your predicament, as always.

QED.

Pathetic, dishonest, 'convenient', silent snip duly noted.

QED.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, troll.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:d0icm6Foep0U1@mid.individual.net...

F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the
ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or
non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves
the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because
you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my
exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That
should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting
mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your
eyes
closed. Period.

OTOH, to be fair, Roddles has his spurious good moments, with
good
discussion/contribution. One such episode was just recently in
another
group (which I won't mention to protect its audience, and no, I
wasn't
involved, just watching). So there you go.

And have you noticed that in the main the good discussions are with
sensible people?

There are very, very few good discussions in the first place. But
no,
Roddles has no excuse whatsoever that the quality of the discussion
mostly or even solely depends on the 'sensibility' of his
correspondents. Quite the contrary, he has many, many of these fights
with quite sensible people.

Bottom line: Roddles and Roddles alone is responsible for *his*
actions.

My advice: Let this rest. You have no case, no case at all. If you
want to help Roddles, then support him - if you think he's right - with
actual factual arguments in an actual factual discussion.

Very difficult with no one able to come up with factual instances.

You were given several - actually thousands - of examples. You chose
to keep sticking your head in the sand. Your choice, not our problem.

But to add insult (literally) to injury, Roddles was kind enough to
give a demonstration in this very thread.

QED.

HTH, HAND, EOD, NC.

This wouldn’t be you doing precisely what you howl about, eh hypocrite ?

 

[Damian]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a25866$0$19793$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com...

Damian wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a1da09$0$56385$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com...
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves
the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because
you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your
eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

It does make you wrong. 'cos you are poop came out of him. So, you do
need
to find your own answers in
the cyberspace.


Are you on some sort of drug, as your posts are a bit incompressible?

I think you're on backyard booze, 'cos you're talking about compressing my
posts.
Read this,

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/26421982/perth-man-in-big-backyard-booze-bust/

Start buying your booze, the walk to the supermarket and walk back home is
good for you,
and prevents you from overdoing it.
You will also be helping the governement and those hardworking, poor booze
companies.

 

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0fsqjF5aioU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a25866$0$19793$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com...
Damian wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a1da09$0$56385$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com...
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the
ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or
non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves
the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because
you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my
exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That
should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your
eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

It does make you wrong. 'cos you are poop came out of him. So, you do
need
to find your own answers in
the cyberspace.


Are you on some sort of drug,

Yep, he's always been a druggy.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/26421982/perth-man-in-big-backyard-booze-bust/

You'll be next, man!
Quit those illegal backyard activities immediately!

 

[Damian]

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:d0fvucF64c1U1@mid.individual.net...

F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves
the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because
you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Non-response duly noted.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

Non-response duly noted.

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your
eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

Sigh! In the cases where he resorts to foot-stamping and insulting, he
*is* wrong, *knows* it and does *not* have *any* counter-argument.

In case you don't get it, with 'foot-stamping', I mean the
foot-stamping of a three-year old. I.e. *all* he does, is say "You're
wrong/stupid/<whatever>!" without saying *why* the other party is wrong,
and he does that because he *doesn't* have a counter-argument.

So I repeat: If you haven't seen that - unsubstantiated foot-stamping
and insulting -, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your eyes closed.

From your response, we can safely conclude the latter.

Very well said.

 

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0gtuaFcng8U2@mid.individual.net...

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:d0fvucF64c1U1@mid.individual.net...
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So you say,you two are the ones casting aspersions so you are the
ones
to prove it, I do not need to waste time searching for the rare or
non
existing hearsay examples

In a normal case, you would be correct to ask that someone proves
the
claim they make. But this case isn't a normal case. It's a case where
someone says "The sky is blue!" and you say "No, it's not!", because
you
have your eyes closed.

If you want proof, please feel free to search aus.* on my exchanges
with Roddles, that should give you some ideas.

Non-response duly noted.

Or you can make it really simple and just search for his postings
with
"You could never bullshit" or/and "out of a wet paper bag". That
should
give you a few thousand hits! :-(

Non-response duly noted.

The main problem cases are if someone corrects/disputes some of
Roddles' statements/claims/<whatever>. When then happens, most of the
time Roddles goes ballistic and into foot-stamping and insulting mode.
If you haven't seen that, you haven't been here (aus.*) or had your
eyes
closed. Period.

Yes I have seen all that,but it does not make him wrong just because
someone disputes his statements.

Sigh! In the cases where he resorts to foot-stamping and insulting, he
*is* wrong, *knows* it and does *not* have *any* counter-argument.

You are just plain wrong, as always.

The Boozemeister hasth approached the arena to defend thyself.

That happens when terminal fuckwits such as yourself desperately
attempt to bullshit your way out of your predicament, as always.

Hey, I didn't do it!