"Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:RuydnVkRsvctSI3YnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.
So you all really just buddies and you are just taking the piss out of
each
other? Mayhap you go through cycles of hostility and acceptance like an
old
married couple? The world should know the scoop.
>>>> 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.
You have been snipping out of context Terry's posts against you a lot
lately. You did the same to me recently.
Message ID: <Xns9815CB0C7DFFD619void@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Message ID: <VI2dnR6uC4oraU7ZnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
See the sleazy snipping you did to make me look bad and yourself better.
Don't try to deny it.
>>>> 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.
I notice you give no position of your own on the issue but a toss-away
insult. Typical Mal.
>>>> 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.
It certainly can. The problem is knowing what it means.
>> Care to go on the record?
>
> I don't run around obsessively reading everything Kaos writes.
And yet you bother to suggest possibilities of what she meant. Are you
just
trying to make me look bad by dissembling? At least admit that. And you
don't need to be an obsessive to notice that slogan. Some Guy completed
that slogan recently. I like to think it's an unofficial newsgroup motto.
>>>> 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.
What am I supposed to do wipe my memory bank of your personal details when
you post them on Usenet, lawyer? Ignorant of law? Quite a bit actually --
I
even avoid law shows on TV since I hate the subject matter. And self-
deprecation (since I'm clearly inferior to you on law) isn't always bad.
>>> 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.
Here's the deal: When someone is a smiter of stupidity I expect a minimal
level of evenhandedness in the practice. If someone consistently ignores
stupid behavior in a poster you usually get along with (use whatever term
you wish) while attacking others' stupidity in the same time frame -- well
that upsets me. I really can't trust such a poster. That's justice. Again
I
feel that only really applies to those make a career at abusing the stupid
or dishonest.
>> 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.
That's... convenient. Especially since you posted in quite a few other
threads in 2005 where MSB was being called out for bad behavior by more
than just me and Bradd.
> 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.
So you do have personal information about his property. Interesting.
>> 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.
I think he has enough money to get access if he wished outside of work.
Busy probably, but I think he had enough self-knowledge to realize he was
starting to act stupid (especially by MSB standards) and it embarrassed
him. He, after all, champions intellectual honesty.
<Sniped the rest>
|
