Re: Credentials without credit, or credit without credentials?

Seppo Renfors wrote: 

Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

...snip crap that shows Seppo is in it to abuse Ken; and to avoid
seeing that Ken mentions his qualifications because they have
been challenged. By the qualifications-challenged, as it happens...




In your case that should read "mentally challenged" - something you
demonstrate well - and lets not forget the short little statistical
examination I made of your posting history - 80% of it was stalking
Inger, abusing her. So don't be jealous of Ken, you have already been
analysed and declared VALUELESS. Interestingly it is for the same
reason - YOU wouldn't know *** from a shovel either!

Oh dearie me. Unmarked snip, Seppo. I guess you would prefer folks not be directed to you doing what you said you would not do, and the reasons why you are jealous of Ken for his qualifications.

Yours, clearly, are not something you are willing to discuss, even after you claimed:

"I

just point out that people refer to ME in their history books, which

I

won't crow about either! Or even that

*I*

have been first to reveal IN
PRINT certain aspects of our history, now accepted to be correct....
not to mention all the other stuff

I

have published...."

So you can dish it out, but you cannot take it. You stand on your shitpile and crow (a disheveled and wastral ***, at that) about your 'accomplishments,' but you won't take the courageous step that Ken did, when challenged, and tell folks his quals.

So keep avoiding this challenge, Seppo. You are already a joke; why not add fraud as well.
.

Quantcast