Damian wrote:
"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.
More unsubstantiated utterances ( the sort of stuff I am protesting about)
Damian wrote:
"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.
More unsubstantiated cods wallop which you are in no position to know,
You and many others just spread such tripe as if it is fact just proving
your opinion
Well, come up with a couple if it is so easy, I have only been around
Google only comes up with people saying he is wrong almost nothing
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a46d31$0$44199$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com...
Damian wrote:
"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.
More unsubstantiated cods wallop which you are in no position to know,
You and many others just spread such tripe as if it is fact just proving
your opinion
See?! That's why I know for sure your head is stuck up his arse.
keep it up, you are only proving your shortcomings
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a47177$0$58876$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com...
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.
It's you who's been providing shit load humour to us.....so keep doing it.
with every utterance you are proving your shortcomings beyond The fact is no one has proved any thing so every one does not know.,
If you were correct it would be trivially easy to prove but you choose
Damian wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a46ff3$0$41695$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com...
Damian wrote:
"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.
Now you are propagating bullshit about me. Are you hoping that it will
enter folklore. Now I know that you are a bullshit artist that spreads
lies And I am in a position to know things that refer directly to me,(I
do
not drink,
Yes, you do. You're unloading your baggage here due to excessive drinking
of
that cheap backyard stuff.
It messes with your head. I've warned your mate long time ago, and I'm
warning you now, quit the shit.
Start collecting stamps or something, it's a better and more productive
hobby than drinking.
I have never met rod).
That's another lie. You don't need to.
You're joined at hips with Rod fella.
There are to many people like you that take a personal dislike to
someone(not necessarily rod) and invent so called facts based on no
evidence just to vent your spleen.
Well, I certainly dislike you being a poop of Rod. Only Rod can fix that.
count.
Damian wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a47177$0$58876$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com...
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.
It's you who's been providing shit load humour to us.....so keep doing
it.
)Damian wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a46b72$0$22340$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com...
Frank Slootweg wrote:
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.
It is no use obfuscating, I was given no such thing,absolutely NO
specific
examples.
You're being obfuscated by your own act. Try taking your head off Rod's
ass.
So, you can start smelling a better world and see a better world as well.
)