)Damian wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message
news:d0hn9uFiru3U1@mid.individual.net...
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.
All that is tolerable. What is intolerable is those hell annoying attack
lines that he hasn't changed in 150 years!
Now you resort to hyperbole in an attempt at humour.
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message
news:d0hn9uFiru3U1@mid.individual.net...
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.
All that is tolerable. What is intolerable is those hell annoying attack
lines that he hasn't changed in 150 years!
Now you resort to hyperbole in an attempt at humour.
Now you are propagating bullshit about me. Are you hoping that it will
More unsubstantiated cods wallop which you are in no position to know,"felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message
news:d0hnsjFj0fqU1@mid.individual.net...
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.
And we're having the best kiss ass Rod has ever created out his poop.
Mr. F. Murf.
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.
You have a better chance finding Rod's dad alive.
He killed himself knowing what his son was growing up to be.
"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:d0g0m1F6ai7U1@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.
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.
Absolutely
Bottom line: Roddles and Roddles alone is responsible for *his*
actions.
And his addiction to that toxic illegal backyard stuff.
Poor old man needs rehabilitation.
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.
He is supporting Rodels. He's joined at hip with him. He can't exist any
other way.
Damian wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message
news:d0hn9uFiru3U1@mid.individual.net...
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.
All that is tolerable. What is intolerable is those hell annoying attack
lines that he hasn't changed in 150 years!
Now you resort to hyperbole in an attempt at humour.