Yesman Mike from Ottawa, and Lying.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 23 May 2007 15:29 GMT

We're going to have a little demonstration on just -who- cut, snips,
twists, lies.

In BLACK AND WHITE, as me and chilly would say.

http://link.toolbot.com/google.com/80411 - reference

<Mike from Ottawa> wrote in message
news:4cn453t4iflhlfq26mm5dcb75uvkv9516h@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 21 May 2007 06:00:14 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>> Yes indeed, it was a "no" because I didn't want to play any stupid
>>> games with you, the master-of-twist. You wanted me to "admit it" if
>>> you proved it? Why? Why do you think you have to prove it? Why do
>>> you think anyone really cares?
>>>
>>> If you recall, my response was:

This was not your "response" (hint- it's not even a -response-).

This statement is a lie.

You also snipped what you allege you were "responding" to, and it wasn't
even the same -post-.

Your below statement "I use "<snip>" whenever I remove text" is a simple
lie, simply proven here.

>>>>> *You* have to back up your crap. Or shut up. Which will it be?
>>>
>>> ...and you said...
>>
>> And -here's- an excellent example of the snipping and context abuse you
>>accuse me of.
>
> Good one. You know that I didn't. Doesn't that make you a liar?

Yes you did.

> I use "<snip>" whenever I remove text, and I would never add anything
> to someone else's text, unlike you. You never did respond to that.
> Convenient.

Respond to what?

Your heartstopping Scopes Trial class accusation that I actually,
scurrilously put John's -name- to his --own-- words???

Talk about exaggeration and drama, have me keelhauled at dawn.

I can agree with you, he -really-, -really- hates it when I do that, and
you soon will to.

It wasn't worth a response then, and isn't now, but for clarification of
your stupidity, and desperation to find -any- little thing to hang on me,
and sorry, that one's a non-starter.

Futile John's been trying to weasel out of his own words here for years,
it's a given cornerstone to his contribution at RS.

>> What a bonus day this is.
>>
>>>> I don't have to do bupkus.
>
> Yes indeed, you don't have to prove anything to anyone, but everyone
> has to prove everything to you (your clan excepted). You really are
> delusional.
>
>>>> You've flatly stated that you'll refuse to be held accountable to
>>>> evidence
>>>> so why bother?
>>>
>>> So why are others held to higher accountability than you?
>>
>> No one is.
>
> BS.
>
>> You're the one who chooses to sling accusation with out backing them up,
>> to
>>be held unaccountable.
>
> You refused to produce the "evidence." So now it's time for you to
> shut yer festering gob, you twit (apologies to Monty Python).

That's another lie.

I clearly offered the evidence to anyone but you or Futile John.

At least, anyone I don't have kill-filed (carl and jANUS).

And the evidence had -already- been produced.

What piques you, Mr. "I Don't Care, But", is that I won't hand it to you
on a platter.

Too bad, soo sad.

>> While you may stubbornly and stupidly refuse my evidence, I at least
>>provide it.
>
> You provide nothing coherent.

I provided nothing, as I stated I would, about Futile John and your bogus
statement.

I've provided several other points which you've ignored, like his post on
dialing 911 and shooting intruders.

Interestingly enough, he seems to have completely missed it for comment
twice now as well.

Imagine that.

I notice you've had no comment on it, either.

Huh.

> You rant and rave about me and John,
> offer proof of something John said, and then renege.

And that's a lie.

Please substantiate your above statement.

Talk about twisting context and the truth.

>If you don't
> provide evidence, how can anyone refuse it? I feel like I'm talking
> to a child.

You refused it right off.

Are you denying that now?

Do I need to re-post your denial again?

>> Lying cocksuckers like you and Francis hurl invective and accusation
>> after
>>invective and accusation without the -slightest- scrap of justification.
>
> Man, I could say exactly the same thing about you. The difference is
> that it'd be true.

I've provided hard evidence of lies and context snipping, and context
twisting within this very post.

You and Futile John chant over and over about my lies, and exaggerations,
and how everyone should "see things in your own words".

I've posted Futile John's own words twice (and many more times this week)
and he's fled from it, and here, right now, are your own words.

He -has- his own words, but he's, uhhh, temporarily unavailable.

But next week we'll have more accusations of bluster, and exaggeration,
and twisting.

""Read it in my -own- words..." John'll say, "Not Popeye's". :-)

>> You just flatulated your way through an entire post doing it.
>>
>>> Why are you
>>> so special, or is that just in your own mind?
>>
>> I'm not special, just durable.
>
> Yup, a veritable legend in your own mind.
>
>> In fact, I'm in Janesville, Wi. right now. :-)
>
> Wow.

Wwwhhhhhhooooooosssssssshhhhhhhh

>>> Who made you lord high
>>> executioner?
>>
>> I did, and am.
>
> Bombast. Talk about flatulence.
>
>>> As I said, John has always tried to understand why the pro-gunners are
>>> like that, and all I've seen is him take a lot abuse. John seems like
>>> pretty decent guy to me, and not just because he's Canadian; there are
>>> a number of people here whose opinion I would value & respect, even if
>>> I don't share every opinion. Just saying that got me plenty of abuse
>>> from the likes of you and Scotty, although I think the only reason is
>>> that I don't walk in lock-step with you.
>>>
>>> Hey, get over it. I'll never walk in lock-step with any clique.
>>
>> No one would have you.
>
> Like I care. *You* definitely care. You need your clan. Without
> your hangers-on, you're nothing.

Sure. :-)

Whatever you lie.

I mean, say.

Yesman.

Signature

Popeye
"After all your whining, you said no.
You weaselled out. Again." -MfO
www.finalprotectivefire.com