Re: Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!
From: Michael Baldwin Bruce (mbbruce_at_mighty.co.za)
Date: 10/11/04
- Next message: Michael Baldwin Bruce: "Re: What is the Darkest Hour of the Night?"
- Previous message: Michael Baldwin Bruce: "Re: OS/2 Isn't it time to let it go and move on?"
- Maybe in reply to: Michael Baldwin Bruce: "Re: Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!"
- Next in thread: Prai Jei: "Re: Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!"
- Reply: Prai Jei: "Re: Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Oct 2004 06:32:37 -0700
bruce aka tholen@antispam.ham wrote in message news:<y3kad.6601$nl4.5800@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> grantco writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Well don't know why at this point (and actually never did).
>
> >>>>>> So you admit that you don't know how Google Groups works.
>
> >>> Yes.
>
> >> Non sequitur.
>
> > How is my direct reply to your statement "Non sequitur?"
>
> Count the number of indentations, grantco. Your statement is out of
> sequence.
>
> >>>>> I admit there is no way to prove anything to you due to the FACT that
> >>>>> you wouldn't admit your error regardless of evidence provided.
>
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I made an error concerning the
> >>>> way Google Groups works, grantco.
>
> > Obviously not.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> >>> You are erroneously presupposing I had to "stalk" you, Tholen.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Obviously not.
>
> Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>>>> Of course that's what keeps you entertaining. Your obvious OCD
> >>>>> condition compels you to continue to respond to all these meaningless
> >>>>> posts in some kind of "serious and important" way.
>
> >>>> I'm not the one who followed you to another newsgroup, grantco.
> >>>> Rather, you're the one who followed me to another newsgroup, thus
> >>>> the person with the "obvious OCD" would be you, not me, grantco.
>
> > Define "follow?" This thread was listed with threads at
> > rec.music.classical. Where was the "following?"
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> > Note: Threads contain postings.
>
> Also non sequitur.
>
> > Somehow this fact continues to elude you, Tholen.
>
> Also non sequitur.
>
> >>> Perhaps true if what you had written above were accurate and correct.
>
> >> It is accurate and correct, grantco.
>
> > Hypocrite.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>> Unfortunately I had no need to go to another newsgroup.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>> The thread appeared complete at rec.music.classical via google groups....
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Whatever.
>
> Tacit admission that the thread does NOT appear complete at
> rec.music.classical, grantco?
>
> >>>>> Where for me its merely a test to see how long you will continue...
>
> >>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >> Note: no response.
>
> Note: still no rsponse.
>
> >>>>> Therein lies your entertainment value.
>
> >>>> Therein lies your true motivation, grantco.
>
> >>> And your point is what? What other motivation do I EVER have to write
> >>> to you?
>
> >> What do your questions have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> > Ah, I see you had no point, Tholen.
>
> I see that you didn't answer the question, grantco. No surprise there,
> really.
>
> > Typical.
>
> Your evasion of the question is indeed typical, grantco.
>
> >>>>> At this point I merely place bets on when you will cease discussing it
> >>>>> with a simple post of "What does any of this have to do with OS/2,
> >>>>> grantco?"
>
> >>>> Further evidence of your reading comprehension problem, grantco,
> >>>> given that I have already ceased discussing it. I'm just standing
> >>>> up to your antagonism, grantco.
>
> >>> Such a complete and provable LIAR you are, Tholen.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>> Why just a few
> >>> lines above you wrote: "I'm not the one who followed you to another
> >>> newsgroup, grantco."
>
> >> I'm well aware of what I wrote, grantco.
>
> > Then you wouldn't have written "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous
> > claim" above Tholen.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>> And also: "You're erroneously presupposing that I
> >>> made an error concerning the way Google Groups works, grantco."
>
> >> I'm well aware of what I wrote, grantco.
>
> > Then you wouldn't have written "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous
> > claim" above Tholen.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>> You are obviously still "discussing" it, Tholen...
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Your statement means little coming from someone still "discussing" it,
> > Tholen.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm still discussing it, grantco.
>
> > You either were not aware of what you wrote, or merely too
> > stupid to remember.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Which is it genius?
>
> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>> I merely go to wherever your newest drivel is Tholen.
>
> >> Ah, so you finally admit that you're stalking me, grantco. Except
> >> that you're erroneously presupposing the existence of any "drivel"
> >> from me, grantco.
>
> > If your definition of stalking is my replying to a thread (containing
> > postings) titled "Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is
> > IRRELEVANT!!!" listed at rec.music.classical, then sure.
>
> There you go again, talking about a thread despite the fact that I was
> talking about your reply to my posting, which appeared only at
> comp.os.os2.advocacy and not at rec.music.classical, grantco, which
> does constitute stalking.
>
> > Under the same criteria I would assume that you must also be stalking
> > each time you reply to this thread.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > After all you only responded because your name was in the title.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > I guess we're stalkbrothers :-)
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>> Luckily I didn't
> >>> have to look far since this complete thread is readable from
> >>> rec.music.classical.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Whatever.
>
> Tacit admission that the thread does NOT appear complete at
> rec.music.classical, grantco?
>
> >>> Still wrong.
>
> >> Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Whatever.
>
> Tacit admission that the thread does NOT appear complete at
> rec.music.classical, grantco?
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that the issue isn't the thread, grantco. Of course,
> >> I've said that before, which you would know by now if you had better
> >> reading comprehension problems.
>
> > My postings are still in the thread, Tholen.
>
> Also irrelevant, grantco, given that the issue is their newsgroup
> location, not their thread location.
>
> > What is a thread without postings, Tholen?
>
> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>> And whether they are technically in comp.os.os2.advocacy or not, they
> >>> are readable in the thread listing at rec.music.classical.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Whatever.
>
> Tacit admission that the thread does NOT appear complete at
> rec.music.classical, grantco?
>
> >>> By the way, wasn't it you who just above said you had "ceased
> >>> discussing it?"
>
> >> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> > Classic evasion, Tholen.
>
> I'm well aware of your evasion, grantco, as evidenced by your
> failure to answer the question.
>
> > You just can't help yourself can you Tholen?
>
> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> > Remember before you reply to this post of mine that you have
> > supposedly "ceased discussing it," Tholen.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I've forgotten that, grantco.
>
> > I wouldn't want you to add further evidence of your lying and
> > hypocriticalness:-)
>
> You're erroneously presupposing some "lying and hypocriticalness" on my
> part, grantco. Rather ironic, coming from the hypocrite who wrote:
>
> "Actually I care little about a waste of bandwidth."
> --grantco
>
> >>>> Bruce is also irrelevant, grantco. The issue is your postings,
> >>>> not the ones from Bruce.
>
> >>> The crossposting is what is relevant.
>
> >> Your stalking posting wasn't cross-posted, grantco. Neither were your
> >> postings today.
>
> > They didn't need to be.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't claim otherwise, grantco. What is
> relevant is your claim that they appear in rec.music.classical, which
> would require cross-posting, given that they appear in
> comp.os.os2.advocacy, grantco.
>
> > These postings are all listed at rec.music.classical...
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>>>>>> Needless to say (except in your case of course) we can move on, can't
> >>>>>>> we?
>
> >>>>>> You've shown no interest in doing so, grantco.
>
> >>>>> I've shown "no interesting in doing so," Tholen? Gosh, soooo many
> >>>>> grammatical errors, Tholen. Are you getting flustered, Tholen?
>
> >>>> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> > Poor Tholen. Soooo flustered.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> >>>> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>> It is where your grammatical error appeared, Tholen.
>
> >> What do alleged grammatical errors have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> > Alleged? Is it your statement that when you wrote "no interesting in
> > doing so" That there were not grammatical errors involved on your
> > part, Tholen?
>
> What do your latest questions have to do with OS/2, grantco? I see
> that you didn't answer the previous question. No surprise there,
> really.
>
> > Your grammatical errors are a fact, Tholen....
>
> What do alleged grammatical errors have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>>> How ironic, coming from the hypocrite who has repeatedly complained
> >>>> about a waste of bandwidth, and then remarked:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Actually I care little about a waste of bandwidth."
> >>>> --grantco
>
> >>> You erronously assume that I take anything I write to you seriously,
> >>> Tholen.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I've made any assumption, grantco.
>
> > Your use of a quote of mine proves otherwise, Tholen.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>>>> As always you erroneously assume that the foolishness of these
> >>>>> exchanges with you is not apparent to me. I acknowledge the
> >>>>> foolishness.
>
> >>>> Well, that's tantamount to admitting that you're a fool, grantco.
>
> >>> It is?
>
> >> "I acknowledge the foolishness."
> >> --grantco
> >>
> >> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, grantco?
>
> > No Tholen.
>
> Then why can't you admit to being a fool, grantco, after having
> admitted to foolishness?
>
> > Do your reading comprehension problems actually allow you
> > to believe that foolishness and fool are the same word with the same
> > definition, Tholen?
>
> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>>>> But what is so entertaining is that you don't...
>
> >>>> Having trouble finishing sentences, grantco?
>
> >>> No, There's 3 periods there just like I planned...
>
> >> Still having trouble finishing sentences, grantco?
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>> Just like those above...
>
> >> Still having trouble finishing sentences, grantco?
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>> And these...
>
> >> Still having trouble finishing sentences, grantco?
>
> > Obviously not.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > (here's 3 more dots for you Tholen)
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I need any dots, grantco.
>
> > ....
>
> What does that have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>> Beyond that it up to you to prove otherwise...
>
> >> Also non sequitur.
>
> > Lack of substantiation on your part noted, Tholen.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>> Again, (read slowly) your posts and mine are IN THE THREAD.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that the issue isn't the thread, grantco. Of course,
> >> I've said that before, which you would know by now if you had better
> >> reading comprehension problems.
>
> > Again what is a thread without postings, Tholen?
>
> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>> I know the frame says the group.
>
> >> And it contradicts your claim, grantco. Still having trouble
> >> admitting that you're wrong, grantco?
>
> > No.
>
> Then why haven't you, grantco?
>
> > Your "claim" is that I needed to stalk you when all I did is click
> > on a thread (filled with postings!) with your name in it listed at
> > rec.music.classical.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that you were at rec.music.classical,
> grantco. To reply to my posting, which appeared only at
> comp.os.os2.advocacy, you had to have gone to comp.os.os2.advocacy.
>
> > If that is what you consider stalking Tholen, then obviously you are
> > guilty of it as well...
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that all you did was click on a
> thread in rec.music.classical, grantco.
>
> >>> That doesn't negate that I had to
> >>> need to "stalk" you outside of rec.music.classical.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Whatever.
>
> Tacit admission that the thread does NOT appear complete at
> rec.music.classical, grantco?
>
> >>> And again, weren't you supposedly "ceased discussing" talking about
> >>> this?
>
> >> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> > Poor Tholen. Such issues you have.
>
> I see that you didn't answer the question, grantco. No surprise
> there really.
>
> > This failure to admit errors must
> > really irritate your wife, Tholen.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't admitted his error
> involving his claim that his postings were in rec.music.classical.
>
> > Of course that is if you actually LIKE girls, Tholen?
>
> What does your non sequitur question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> > I'm sure little boys are much easier for you to boss around.
>
> Classic antagonism, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
> argument.
>
> > I forget. Are you a doctor or a priest, Tholen?
>
> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>> My threads are in the postings.
>
> >> Non sequitur.
>
> > How?
>
> Reread the statement of mine that your response followed, grantco.
>
> >>>>> Which part of these postings is not about the thread in question,
> >>>>> genius?
>
> >>>> The part about your stalking of me, grantco. Of course, you would know
> >>>> that by now if you had better reading comprehension skills.
>
> > I thought you said we were discussing postings rather than threads,
> > genius. Either way stalking is obviously irrelevant from your previous
> > commentary.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> >>> Its not a great effort to read the threads listed
> >>> under "Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!"
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that the issue isn't the thread, grantco. Of course,
> >> I've said that before, which you would know by now if you had better
> >> reading comprehension problems.
>
> > OK. Its not a great effort to read the postings listed under "Tholen
> > Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!"
>
> Irrelevant, given that the level of effort isn't at issue, grantco.
>
> > How does this change anything?
>
> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>>>>> That would be a rather expensive way to learn a lesson in basic web
> >>>>>> design, grantco.
>
> >>>>> Which is what?
>
> >>>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, grantco?
>
> >>> No, no where is there a statement regarding the contents of your
> >>> "lesson in basic web design," tholen.
>
> >> Somewhere there is a statement about your problem understanding basic
> >> web design, grantco.
>
> > Which is it Tholen?
>
> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, grantco?
>
> > A "lesson in basic web design," or a "problem understanding basic web
> > design?" Surely you don't mean that these statements are the same. The
> > only common words are "web" and "design."
>
> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>> Suffering from typing and memory issues, Tholen?
>
> >> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco? Rather ironic,
> >> coming from someone having multiple problems.
>
> > Note; No relevant response...
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>> Its listed at rec.music.classical.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that the issue isn't the thread, grantco. Of course,
> >> I've said that before, which you would know by now if you had better
> >> reading comprehension problems.
>
> > This list of postings under the title "Tholen Finally Admits that
> > Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!" is listed at rec.music.classical.
>
> Irrelevant, grantco, given that the issue is your postings, which are
> NOT listed at rec.music.classical.
>
> > Again what does the use of "postings" rather than "thread" change?
>
> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> >>>> "As always you erroneously assume that the foolishness
> >>>> of these exchanges with you is not apparent to me. I
> >>>> acknowledge the foolishness."
> >>>> --grantco
> >>>>
> >>>> "Actually I care little about a waste of bandwidth."
> >>>> --grantco
>
> >>> Completey true, Tholen.
>
> >> Yes, it's completely true that you're a hypocrite and a fool, grantco.
>
> > Such playgound logic Dr. You really should attempt to grow up and
> > play with the adults, Tholen.
>
> Ah, so you must be a kid, grantco. Figures.
>
> >>> What's your point?
>
> >> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> > Obviously you had no point...
>
> I see that you didn't answer the question, grantco. No surprise
> there, really.
>
> >>> Why do you continue to write to someone who obviously considers you of
> >>> no value other than for simple entertainment?
>
> >> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> > Note: No relevant response.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >> "As always you erroneously assume that the foolishness
> >> of these exchanges with you is not apparent to me. I
> >> acknowledge the foolishness."
> >> --grantco
> >>
> >> "Actually I care little about a waste of bandwidth."
> >> --grantco
>
> > And your point is?
>
> What does your question have to do with OS/2, grantco?
>
> "As always you erroneously assume that the foolishness
> of these exchanges with you is not apparent to me. I
> acknowledge the foolishness."
> --grantco
>
> "Actually I care little about a waste of bandwidth."
> --grantco
Bloody repeats, bruce.
- Next message: Michael Baldwin Bruce: "Re: What is the Darkest Hour of the Night?"
- Previous message: Michael Baldwin Bruce: "Re: OS/2 Isn't it time to let it go and move on?"
- Maybe in reply to: Michael Baldwin Bruce: "Re: Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!"
- Next in thread: Prai Jei: "Re: Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!"
- Reply: Prai Jei: "Re: Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
