| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Robibnikoff
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:38 am Post subject: Re: Something everyone should see. How The Food We Consume I |
 |
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> whined:
| Quote: |
Weird. I make a joke. I am known for "humor that isn't funny."
|
Thank you, Captain Obvious!
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
CB
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:16 am Post subject: Re: Something everyone should see. How The Food We Consume I |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:54:40 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:05:46 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 9, 9:09 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah Ha! I shall put that on my "To Do" list for when I'm rich and
famous.
What in the world does finding a kosher butcher have to do with being
"rich and famous"?.
Oh, good grief!
It's an old expression, Kelly.
Okay...but what does it have to do with finding a kosher butcher? Are
you in the habit of saying "...when I'm rich and famous" in reply to
questions that have nothing to do with being "rich and famous"?
^ ^ ^ ^^
Weird. I make a joke. I am known for "humor that isn't funny."
Then you tell me, not only was my joke not funny, it didn't relate
to the topic.
"Ok."
I didn't / don't expect your understanding, or even your cooperation
on any level.
But I don't get the necessity of arguing over A JOKE.
|
johnnioe, you're funniest when you're serious.
PLease don't tell jokes.
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:31 am Post subject: Re: Something everyone should see. How The Food We Consume I |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:16:13 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
<316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: | On Aug 11, 12:54 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:05:46 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>" <316k...@gmail.com
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 9, 9:09 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah Ha! I shall put that on my "To Do" list for when I'm rich and
famous.
What in the world does finding a kosher butcher have to do with being
"rich and famous"?.
Oh, good grief!
It's an old expression, Kelly.
Okay...but what does it have to do with finding a kosher butcher? Are
you in the habit of saying "...when I'm rich and famous" in reply to
questions that have nothing to do with being "rich and famous"?
^ ^ ^ ^^
Weird. I make a joke.
That was a joke?
I am known for "humor that isn't funny."
Yes, you certainly are.
Then you tell me, not only was my joke not funny, it didn't relate
to the topic.
Yep. And it still isn't funny and still doesn't relate to the topic.
|
Perhaps, bitch, you should simply stop reading my posts.
I'm going to return to not reading yours, I think.
But I DO thank you for finding that church! Though you never were
big enough to admit you had falsely accused me REPEATEDLY!
Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I* found
it in a search engine!
You are QUICK to judge, QUICK to falsely accuse, slow-- VERY SLOW --
to apologize.
| Quote: |
I didn't / don't expect your understanding, or even your cooperation
on any level.
"Understanding"? More inappropriate verbiage, John. "Cooperation"?
Again, more inappropriate verbiage in relation to the entire topic.
But I don't get the necessity of arguing over A JOKE.
Who's arguing about it besides you, John? I simply asked for a
clarification. As usual, you take even that and turn it into
something it never was intended to be.
|
It wasn't friendly.
| Quote: |
You know - like your "joke". |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Robibnikoff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: Something everyone should see. How The Food We Consume I |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> whined:
| Quote: |
Perhaps, bitch, you should simply stop reading my posts.
|
Charming.
| Quote: |
I'm going to return to not reading yours, I think.
|
Oh, bullshit.
| Quote: | You are QUICK to judge, QUICK to falsely accuse, slow-- VERY SLOW --
to apologize.
|
Oh, grow up, you big baby. No one owes you shit.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
On Aug 12, 5:08 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I* found
it in a search engine!
Provide the link to your DOS 6.01 online discovery then, John. For
once, provide some proof for one of your claims.
NO! You are every bit as capable of such searches as I am!
|
Yes, and what I came up with showed that there was never a a "DOS
6.01".
| Quote: | What's this with you? Are you back to considering me your lap dog?
I'm not your lap dog.
|
No, you're right. I happen to love my dog to pieces. She would do
anything for me and I for her. You I don't even like.
| Quote: | "DOS 6.01" isn't "a claim I made," and I don't need to prove DIDDLY
to you.
|
Yeah, it is a claim you made, John. Would you like me to provide the
post for you?
| Quote: | I also don't appreciate your ongoing, piddly anty nit-picking. It's
not REMOTEDLY Christian.
|
Asking for proof from someone who is a known liar isn't Christian?
How so?
| Quote: | But then, you never REALLY claimed you were a Christian, now did
you?
I mean-- not REALLY!
|
Oh, yes I most certainly did. In fact, I've given my testimony
several times in this very group.
| Quote: | I believe even Mike Painter said he recalls there being a DOS 6.01
Likely, you or he or someone mistook the DOS 6.01 with DOS 6.1.
|
Excuse me? Are you now changing your mind about what the version was
named? Yesterday you were adamant, now you're changing your mind?
Pretty funny stuff, John.
| Quote: | As for a "link", good grief!
I'll give you several THOUSAND Links.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=DOS+6.01&fr=yfp-t-203&toggle=1&cop=m...
I just wonder what purpose you believe you are serving by
nit-picking.
|
Just asking you to, for once, actually provide proof for something you
claim, John. Thanks for the link above, but you obviously didn't read
it well or understand what you read. There are not "thousands of
links" there for "DOS 6.01". In fact, I have found a list of released
Microsoft DOS versions over the years, and guess what? There's no
"DOS 6.01" on it.
Big surprise. You couldn't even name the squadron you supposedly
served in at Alconbury until I practically spoon-fed the info to you.
| Quote: | You serve only to alienate people who might otherwise be friend
material.
|
I'm not so desperate for friends (like you) that I have a need to make
them in an online, anonymous forum, John. I have plenty of real
friends, thanks. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:55:20 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
<316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: | On Aug 11, 6:31 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I* found
it in a search engine!
Provide the link to your DOS 6.01 online discovery then, John. For
once, provide some proof for one of your claims.
|
NO! You are every bit as capable of such searches as I am!
???
What's this with you? Are you back to considering me your lap dog?
I'm not your lap dog.
"DOS 6.01" isn't "a claim I made," and I don't need to prove DIDDLY
to you.
I also don't appreciate your ongoing, piddly anty nit-picking. It's
not REMOTEDLY Christian.
But then, you never REALLY claimed you were a Christian, now did
you?
I mean-- not REALLY!
I believe even Mike Painter said he recalls there being a DOS 6.01
Likely, you or he or someone mistook the DOS 6.01 with DOS 6.1.
As for a "link", good grief!
I'll give you several THOUSAND Links.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=DOS+6.01&fr=yfp-t-203&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
I just wonder what purpose you believe you are serving by
nit-picking.
You serve only to alienate people who might otherwise be friend
material.
As of now, if I saw you in a river somewhere, in danger of
drowning, I'm not sure at all that I'd rescue you.
You should truly give that one some thought when your favorite
activity seems to be harassing people. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ujb
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
john w <j wrote:
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:55:20 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 11, 6:31 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I* found
it in a search engine!
Provide the link to your DOS 6.01 online discovery then, John. For
once, provide some proof for one of your claims.
NO! You are every bit as capable of such searches as I am!
???
What's this with you? Are you back to considering me your lap dog?
I'm not your lap dog.
"DOS 6.01" isn't "a claim I made," and I don't need to prove DIDDLY
to you.
|
papa porn you said you worked on DOS 6.01, let me quote, "I'll narrow it
down for you: I worked on Microsoft Project for DOS.
And I worked on DOS 6.01". Now papa porn I came to your defense so it
would be nice for you to back up *your* claim!
| Quote: | I also don't appreciate your ongoing, piddly anty nit-picking. It's
not REMOTEDLY Christian.
|
hahaha so funny
| Quote: | But then, you never REALLY claimed you were a Christian, now did
you?
I mean-- not REALLY!
I believe even Mike Painter said he recalls there being a DOS 6.01
Likely, you or he or someone mistook the DOS 6.01 with DOS 6.1.
As for a "link", good grief!
I'll give you several THOUSAND Links.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=DOS+6.01&fr=yfp-t-203&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
I just wonder what purpose you believe you are serving by
nit-picking.
|
you are a known liar, she asked you to show you are telling the truth
this one time.
| Quote: | You serve only to alienate people who might otherwise be friend
material.
As of now, if I saw you in a river somewhere, in danger of
drowning, I'm not sure at all that I'd rescue you.
You should truly give that one some thought when your favorite
activity seems to be harassing people. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:46:00 -0400, ujb <ujbj@bigfoot.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: | john w <j wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:55:20 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 11, 6:31 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I* found
it in a search engine!
Provide the link to your DOS 6.01 online discovery then, John. For
once, provide some proof for one of your claims.
NO! You are every bit as capable of such searches as I am!
???
What's this with you? Are you back to considering me your lap dog?
I'm not your lap dog.
"DOS 6.01" isn't "a claim I made," and I don't need to prove DIDDLY
to you.
John (I corrected your initial, obsessive-compulsive insult),
you said you worked on DOS 6.01, |
Correct.
let me quote, "I'll narrow it
| Quote: | down for you: I worked on Microsoft Project for DOS.
|
Correct.
| Quote: | And I worked on DOS 6.01".
|
Correct.
Now John (I again fixed your obsessive-compulsive insult)
I came to your defense
You need not have. You knew the information I gave was accurate,
and FOR ONCE, you said so.
You have seen me give accurate information about Insane Elaine MANY
times, but due to your TOTAL lack of character, you remained silent.
(that's the same as lying, slug slime.)
so it
| Quote: | would be nice for you to back up *your* claim!
|
I don't feel the remotest need to do that, but I DID provide a
url to the search I did.
| Quote: |
I also don't appreciate your ongoing, piddly anty nit-picking. It's
not REMOTEDLY Christian.
hahaha so funny
|
^ ^ ^ ^ the saddest part, slug slime, is that you aren't funny at
all. You're insane beyond words.
| Quote: |
But then, you never REALLY claimed you were a Christian, now did
you?
I mean-- not REALLY!
I believe even Mike Painter said he recalls there being a DOS 6.01
Likely, you or he or someone mistook the DOS 6.01 with DOS 6.1.
As for a "link", good grief!
I'll give you several THOUSAND Links.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=DOS+6.01&fr=yfp-t-203&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
I just wonder what purpose you believe you are serving by
nit-picking.
you are a known liar,
|
Actually, I'm not, slug slime. YOU are a known liar.
john w |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ujb
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
john w <j wrote:
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:46:00 -0400, ujb <ujbj@bigfoot.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
john w <j wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:55:20 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 11, 6:31 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I* found
it in a search engine!
Provide the link to your DOS 6.01 online discovery then, John. For
once, provide some proof for one of your claims.
NO! You are every bit as capable of such searches as I am!
???
What's this with you? Are you back to considering me your lap dog?
I'm not your lap dog.
"DOS 6.01" isn't "a claim I made," and I don't need to prove DIDDLY
to you.
John (I corrected your initial, obsessive-compulsive insult),
you said you worked on DOS 6.01,
Correct.
|
yes papa porn, correct
| Quote: |
let me quote, "I'll narrow it
down for you: I worked on Microsoft Project for DOS.
Correct.
|
yes papa porn, correct
| Quote: | And I worked on DOS 6.01".
Correct.
|
yes papa porn, correct
| Quote: | Now John (I again fixed your obsessive-compulsive insult)
|
hahaha yes papa porn, i can't help meself! lol
| Quote: | I came to your defense
You need not have. You knew the information I gave was accurate,
and FOR ONCE, you said so.
|
papa porn, i b here 4 u, i help when i can!
| Quote: | You have seen me give accurate information about Insane Elaine MANY
times, but due to your TOTAL lack of character, you remained silent.
|
lol hahaha lol
| Quote: | (that's the same as lying, slug slime.)
|
no papa porn, you were lying and i didn't remain silent
| Quote: | so it
would be nice for you to back up *your* claim!
I don't feel the remotest need to do that, but I DID provide a
url to the search I did.
|
this is why you are known as queen liar
| Quote: | I also don't appreciate your ongoing, piddly anty nit-picking. It's
not REMOTEDLY Christian.
hahaha so funny
^ ^ ^ ^ the saddest part, slug slime, is that you aren't funny at
all. You're insane beyond words.
|
lol hahahahaha
| Quote: | But then, you never REALLY claimed you were a Christian, now did
you?
I mean-- not REALLY!
I believe even Mike Painter said he recalls there being a DOS 6.01
Likely, you or he or someone mistook the DOS 6.01 with DOS 6.1.
As for a "link", good grief!
I'll give you several THOUSAND Links.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=DOS+6.01&fr=yfp-t-203&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
I just wonder what purpose you believe you are serving by
nit-picking.
you are a known liar,
Actually, I'm not, slug slime.
|
oh papa porn, you're insane beyond words, and too stupid for them too...
| Quote: | YOU are a known liar.
|
yes, sadly I have told a white one or two, but here it's you that
everyone knows as liar. 8-(
suny |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Robibnikoff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:9su2a4pa9fmipo4rpjlhqienpfh2q8nbbo@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:55:20 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 11, 6:31 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I* found
it in a search engine!
Provide the link to your DOS 6.01 online discovery then, John. For
once, provide some proof for one of your claims.
NO! You are every bit as capable of such searches as I am!
|
LOL! How telling.
| Quote: | ???
What's this with you? Are you back to considering me your lap dog?
I'm not your lap dog.
"DOS 6.01" isn't "a claim I made," and I don't need to prove DIDDLY
to you.
I also don't appreciate your ongoing, piddly anty nit-picking. It's
not REMOTEDLY Christian.
|
Remotedly? Idiot.
So, is writing porn christian? What about keeping a list of people you'd
like to murder? Is that christian?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Robibnikoff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> lied:
| Quote: | On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:46:00 -0400, ujb <ujbj@bigfoot.com> wrote:
you are a known liar,
Actually, I'm not, slug slime. YOU are a known liar.
|
You just proved him right 
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
On Aug 12, 5:15 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I* found
it in a search engine!
Provide the link to your DOS 6.01 online discovery then, John. For
once, provide some proof for one of your claims.
NO! You are every bit as capable of such searches as I am!
Yes, and what I came up with showed that there was never a a "DOS
6.01".
You're a liar.
If what you are saying is correct,
post your proof.
You are constantly DEMANDING "proof." Post yours.
john w
|
Already done in another post. Twice, in fact.
| Quote: | You make no sense, and you make less sense than that.
|
That made absolutely no sense, John.
| Quote: | I also don't appreciate your ongoing, piddly anty nit-picking. It's
not REMOTEDLY Christian.
Asking for proof from someone who is a known liar isn't Christian?
^ ^ ^ And now, you've cycled back around to the LIBEL, which
goes against 1 Cor 13 (The Love Chapter).
|
Wanna explain how asking you a question constitutes libel, John?
| Quote: | And I'm not going to waste hours on you anymore.
You TRULY are not worthy of my time.
|
So you've said on numerous occasions. Yet you continue to read and
respond to my posts. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:15 am Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
<316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: | On Aug 12, 5:08 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I* found
it in a search engine!
Provide the link to your DOS 6.01 online discovery then, John. For
once, provide some proof for one of your claims.
NO! You are every bit as capable of such searches as I am!
Yes, and what I came up with showed that there was never a a "DOS
6.01".
|
You're a liar.
If what you are saying is correct,
post your proof.
You are constantly DEMANDING "proof." Post yours.
john w
| Quote: |
What's this with you? Are you back to considering me your lap dog?
I'm not your lap dog.
No, you're right. I happen to love my dog to pieces. She would do
anything for me and I for her. You I don't even like.
|
^ ^ ^ Your Christianity is showing!
| Quote: |
"DOS 6.01" isn't "a claim I made," and I don't need to prove DIDDLY
to you.
Yeah, it is a claim you made, John.
|
I didn't deny it.
Would you like me to provide the
???? Why would you provide the post? I didn't deny it.
You make no sense, and you make less sense than that.
| Quote: |
I also don't appreciate your ongoing, piddly anty nit-picking. It's
not REMOTEDLY Christian.
Asking for proof from someone who is a known liar isn't Christian?
|
^ ^ ^ And now, you've cycled back around to the LIBEL, which
goes against 1 Cor 13 (The Love Chapter).
And I'm not going to waste hours on you anymore.
You TRULY are not worthy of my time.
john w |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
On Aug 13, 2:52 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:19:40 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"<316k...@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 12, 5:15 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I* found
it in a search engine!
Provide the link to your DOS 6.01 online discovery then, John. For
once, provide some proof for one of your claims.
NO! You are every bit as capable of such searches as I am!
Yes, and what I came up with showed that there was never a a "DOS
6.01".
You're a liar.
If what you are saying is correct,
post your proof.
You are constantly DEMANDING "proof." Post yours.
Already done in another post. Twice, in fact.
|
I notice you skipped the above comment. Did you go looking for the
posts where I provided not one, but two links to a website that lists
all known published versions of MS-DOS?
| Quote: | Just because you didn't understand my comment doesn't mean it made
no sense.
Simply admit for once, "I don't think I got that, John."
Of course, that statement would require you to admit imperfection.
"Can't have THAT!"
|
Why not? I didn't get it - so sue me.
| Quote: | You have no EVIDENCE that I'm "a known liar."
|
The comments and testimony of countless Usenet posters prove
otherwise.
| Quote: | However, I DO have evidence that YOU ARE a known liar.
|
Please, by all means, provide that evidence.
| Quote: | You calling me a "known liar" is libel.
|
No, that you are known in Usenet as a "known liar" is documented fact,
John.
| Quote: | Stupid person. You commit libel (obviously a compulsive
behavior), and then you want to know how you've committed libel?
|
Hmmm...you libel me by claiming that I have committed libel, yet you
are unable to provide any proof that I've committed libel. Typical.
| Quote: | I'll do as I please. You do! You'll soon figure out that others
are as entitled as you are.
|
Actually, that's not one of my faults. It is yours, though.
| Quote: | I also indicated (though it went WAY over your head: Whooosh!)
that I was done with you for that post!
Pretty much like now!
|
I see. How are you coming on being able to provide a reference that
DOS "6.01" ever existed, John?
| Quote: | Next you'll be saying, "That's NOT what you meant!"
|
You're obviously confused. That's not one of my responses, it's one
of yours.
(now, don't forget to look for the posts with the links to info about
your alleged "DOS 6.01", John) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: Will John W take the challenge to provide a link he says |
|
|
On Aug 13, 3:37 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:19:40 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
316k...@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 12, 5:15 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now you've accused me of lying about DOS 6.01, even after *I*
found it in a search engine!
Provide the link to your DOS 6.01 online discovery then, John.
For once, provide some proof for one of your claims.
NO! You are every bit as capable of such searches as I am!
Yes, and what I came up with showed that there was never a a "DOS
6.01".
You're a liar.
If what you are saying is correct,
post your proof.
You are constantly DEMANDING "proof." Post yours.
john w
Already done in another post. Twice, in fact.
You make no sense, and you make less sense than that.
That made absolutely no sense, John.
Just because you didn't understand my comment doesn't mean it made
no sense.
Simply admit for once, "I don't think I got that, John."
Of course, that statement would require you to admit imperfection.
"Can't have THAT!"
I also don't appreciate your ongoing, piddly anty nit-picking.
It's not REMOTEDLY Christian.
Asking for proof from someone who is a known liar isn't Christian?
You have no EVIDENCE that I'm "a known liar."
However, I DO have evidence that YOU ARE a known liar.
^ ^ ^ And now, you've cycled back around to the LIBEL, which
goes against 1 Cor 13 (The Love Chapter).
Wanna explain how asking you a question constitutes libel, John?
You calling me a "known liar" is libel.
Stupid person. You commit libel (obviously a compulsive
behavior), and then you want to know how you've committed libel?
John, who claims he never cross posts does so here. Sould it be because he
knows tht people here will recognise he is correct about DOS 6.01?
So far he's been right twice since I have found him.
Naturally he was as insulting to me when I defended him as when I accuse
him.
|
Okay, I'll bite, Mike. How is John correct about DOS 6.01? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
