"Joseph" <nonexistent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Xns9843BE1DB670619void@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Joseph" <nonexistent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "Joseph" <nonexistent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns98437E63290E619void@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Some Guy <noemailformethanks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>>>> Joseph wrote:
>>>>>>> Let's get real here -- Mal doesn't have an honest bone in his
>>>>>>> body when challenged.
>>>>>> Are you saying he won't admit when he's wrong? I think Google
>>>>>> would disagree with you in that regard. Shall we have a look
>>>>>> through the archives?
>>>>> I am saying that he has a strong tendency for that when he has a
>>>>> negative attitude towards a poster or position,
>>>> Wow. Nice weasel, Joseph. Either back up your opinion with fact or
>>>> shut the **** up.
>>> 1. You were cordial with Terry Austin once upon a time.
>>
>> I have been cordial with Terry Austin recently, too.
>
> It's the exception that proves the rule.
It's the cliche that proves you are full of ****.
> Nice dodge.
No dodging at all. Your non sequitur is nothing more than an attempt at
obfuscating the issue.
>>> Terry certainly hasn't changed. He hurt your little feelings too
>>> much, did he?
>>
>> Nope. By the way, how does this, even if it were true, show that I
>> don't have an honest bone in my body when challenged?
>
> Answer it yourself, if you can.
No. It is your assertion. Either show its relevance, or shut the ****
up.
>>> 2. Isn't it odd that you state that I'm a moral cripple if I don't
>>> believe in truth or morality,
>>
>> Not really.
>
> Yes it is, IDIOT,
No, not really. It isn't odd
> since morality has no existence how can I be crippled
> by something that is imaginary. The crippling comes from believing in
> morality, instead of being liberated from realizing it is a facade
> invented by humans.
Spare me your Philosophy 101 babble, kook.
>>> but when say Kaos tosses out her chaote
>>> slogan of Nothing is True and Everything Is Permitted you say
>>> nothing.
>> Am I somehow obligated to?
> Of course not, but silence speaks also of intention.
No, it really doesn't.
> Care to go on the record?
I don't run around obsessively reading everything Kaos writes.
>>> or you play favorites?
>> Oh, I *do* play favorites. I am partial to those who are not idiots.
> Most idiots think that.
That, even if true, is irrelevant.
>>> Or are you just too stupid to understand her?
>> Maybe I know what she is talking about, and it is *you* who are too
>> stupid to understand her.
> Objection Your Honor witness is being augmentative.
Attempting to ignorantly use legal language with me is making you look
like
even more of a fool that you already do. For a stalker, you certainly
don't
do your homework.
>> By the way, how does this, even if it were true, show that I don't
>> have an honest bone in my body when challenged?
> My jurors the accused does not understand the value of character
> evidence of integrity when talking about the accused lying, integrity
> and so forth.
You haven't even established a case to begin with, chump. Show some
evidence that tends to prove that I don't have an honest bone in my body
when challenged, or shut the **** up.
>>> 3. Where were you during MSB's little meltdown in 2005?
>> Probably eating pizza. Why do you ask?
> You were also posting, smartass.
Likely.
>>> You didn't make one post critizing anything he said.
>> I highly doubt that. You will have to be more specific, by the way,
>> about this "meltdown." For example, thread names and dates of this
>> alleged behavior you feel I was somehow obligated to criticize.
> You are delusional if that's what you think.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
> I really would like to see any such post during that period.
Would you? You will have to be more specific, then, as I said.
> And no one said you were obligated,
No, you just imply it, over and over.
> I'm casting aspersions on your character.
Am I supposed to care? You haven't proven your case.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/73
> 8ac2aa9260c38b/52e7636aaa979720?hl=en#52e7636aaa979720
>
> Lawful Stupid Thread first post August 26 2005 by David Alex Lamb
>
> MSB last significant posts in RGFD were in this thread. It was somewhat
> sad to see him go out in such a blaze of stupidity.
As I recall, I largely dropped out of that thread fairly early on, and did
not read too much of the subthreads that had become an MSB/Bradd pissing
contest. I spent most of my time in that thread arguing against a
position
that Matt Frisch took.
Perhaps you'd like to explain where I show that I don't have an honest
bone
in my body when challenged.
>> We have similar posting styles,
>> and some similar interests and attitudes otherwise.
>
> Why don't you live with him, then?
My house is bigger than his.
> You live in the same state after all,
> and you seem to know he still around... somehow.
He popped into this NG a month or two ago. He is likely stuck working for
someone who doesn't allow Usenet access, or is otherwise too busy to be
here.
>> By the way, I am not obligated to criticize every post I disagree
>> with.
> No one ever said you were.
No, you just repeatedly imply that not to do so somehow impeaches my
character.
>>>> That had very little to do with religion, and everything to do with
>>>> my pet punching bag. It is pretty interesting that your obsession
>>>> with me led you to follow me to another newsgroup. Did you read my
>>>> posts to the trucker newsgroup, too?
>>
>>> No jackass, I had alt.religion.wicca subscribed before you went in
>>> there.
>>
>> Prove it, stalker.
>
> Don't need to.
Can't.
The rest of your crap was too boring to reply to.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
|
