Subject:
|
Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:49:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
208 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > > Ban him. Shun him. Send him emails and tell him to shut up.
> > > >
> > > > I hate to repeat, but take your own advice. Don't bother responding to
> > > > useless posts. It brings your own image WAY down. As far as I'm concerned
> > > > he's only a part of the problem. Stop encouraging it.
> > >
> > > Meaning what? I am to ignore every slur he makes so he gets away with his
> > > lies scot free?
> >
> > Is he to ignor the slurs and accusations you have made against him?
> > Isn't that exactly why he keeps asking you to show where he lied?
>
> I did. He chose to deny it was a lie.
Because it is not a lie. You know it. I know it.
I noticed you have not replied to this one, where I ask about your "lies":
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=14203
> At that point it's a difference of
> opinion, I suppose, but you cannot say that I did not show it.
The truth is not about opinion!
>
>
> > Yes I read the "supposed" lie you accuse him of. Seems to me the title you
> > gave this thread is a lie of the same magnitude. "14 posts by Scott just now"
>
> When I posted that, what I had to go on was the timestamps on the posts. As
> LFB said, they are ALL from a very short period of time.
> > - you can read as well as everyone else, that they were posted over
> > a period of 2 days.
>
> No. Claimed to have been queued up for posting, yes, but they were posted in
> a short period of time.
"Claimed" - to you have any other explanation?
> Go look for yourself. I'm even willing to allow that
> Scott confirms days old proposed posts without looking to see if they're
> still relevant or worth posting,
I think they were all still relevant? Had you answered any of the points
elswhere?
> but my subject line, as it stands, (He
> caused 14 posts to happen "just now", after all) is correct, factual, and
> non pejorative, unlike "White Man's Club" which is counterfactual and
> pejorative.
*Sigh* "White Man's Club" - Out of context again.
>
> > I agree with David - continued requests to ban him will most likely get
> > both of you banned.
>
> If you choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater that's your choice, I
> guess. Most people are smarter than that though.
Perhaps the baby needs to grow up a little?
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 14 posts by Scott just now
|
| (...) I did. He chose to deny it was a lie. At that point it's a difference of opinion, I suppose, but you cannot say that I did not show it. (...) When I posted that, what I had to go on was the timestamps on the posts. As LFB said, they are ALL (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
