This writer's attention has been drawn to a remarkable post by one
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> who seems to be attempting
to come across as a bit of a macho man in message
news:<8d7ahv8n784sv4n5vnclkjvb
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> who seems to be attempting
to come across as a bit of a macho man in message
news:<8d7ahv8n784sv4n5vnclkjvb
After first denouncing this writer (moi) as a "pretentious shite", a
"mincing wanker" and a "stalker", Mr Pears adds ominously....
"mincing wanker" and a "stalker", Mr Pears adds ominously....
******************************
I'd give him another comprehensive kicking if I could be bothered....
I'd give him another comprehensive kicking if I could be bothered....
******************************
W-w-w-w-w-w-WHAT? Pears give Breen (that's MOI, guys!) a
"comprehensive kicking"? ANOTHER comprehensive
kicking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????!??
me? Is it just moi, or do others also think that Mr Pears would be
hard put to "give a comprehensive kicking" even to the likes of THESE
GUYS?.....
"comprehensive kicking"? ANOTHER comprehensive
kicking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????!??
me? Is it just moi, or do others also think that Mr Pears would be
hard put to "give a comprehensive kicking" even to the likes of THESE
GUYS?.....
It was felt by many that Mr Pears' (perhaps unconscious) use of humour
makes this sentence an ironic classic. It has, therefore, been
entered for the 2003 Daisycutter Sports "Post of the Year" award.
makes this sentence an ironic classic. It has, therefore, been
entered for the 2003 Daisycutter Sports "Post of the Year" award.
..............................
The prestigious Daisycutter Sports Digest "Post of
the Year" award goes to the post adjudged by the editors to be the....
(a) most morally OBTUSE, or ....
(b) most obnoxiously HYPOCRITICAL, or ....
(c) just plain IGNORANT statement of the year.
The prestigious Daisycutter Sports Digest "Post of
the Year" award goes to the post adjudged by the editors to be the....
(a) most morally OBTUSE, or ....
(b) most obnoxiously HYPOCRITICAL, or ....
(c) just plain IGNORANT statement of the year.
The judges were satisfied that this post fulfils criterion (c).
Once again, well done, David Pears!!
Once again, well done, David Pears!!
LET YOUR DELUSIONS WORK FOR YOU....
Click here to Reply
 |
- show quoted text -
|
Morrissey Breen says...
> This writer's attention has been drawn to a remarkable post by one
> David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> who seems to be attempting
> to come across as a bit of a macho man in message
> news:<8d7ahv8n784sv4n5vnclkjvb
>
> After first denouncing this writer (moi) as a "pretentious shite", a
> "mincing wanker" and a "stalker", Mr Pears adds ominously....
>
> ******************************
> I'd give him another comprehensive kicking if I could be bothered....
>
> ******************************
>
> W-w-w-w-w-w-WHAT? Pears give Breen (that's MOI, guys!) a
> "comprehensive kicking"?
> This writer's attention has been drawn to a remarkable post by one
> David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> who seems to be attempting
> to come across as a bit of a macho man in message
> news:<8d7ahv8n784sv4n5vnclkjvb
>
> After first denouncing this writer (moi) as a "pretentious shite", a
> "mincing wanker" and a "stalker", Mr Pears adds ominously....
>
> ******************************
> I'd give him another comprehensive kicking if I could be bothered....
>
> ******************************
>
> W-w-w-w-w-w-WHAT? Pears give Breen (that's MOI, guys!) a
> "comprehensive kicking"?
Hey Mowwisey you big mouthed pretentious bullshit artist, where's
the Bush lie???
the Bush lie???
You say there's 33000 Bush lies out there, but rather than
produce one and substantiate your claims, you waste time writing
crap like this??
produce one and substantiate your claims, you waste time writing
crap like this??
Where's the Bush lie?????
Or are you in fact the liar???
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
|
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb3a0456.0307240346.
- show quoted text -
Your posts remind me of that French mining guys posts (the one who hates
Australia). This must have been how it was like in the beginning - starting
off with short, personal attack rants at the top level, convinced that
anyone cared - then later on progresing to fully, multi-page mind-dumps
triggered by the slightest reference to him in a "bad light". You need to
have a really long signature though to top it all off.
|
Morrissey Breen allegedly said:
>
> W-w-w-w-w-w-WHAT? Pears give Breen (that's MOI, guys!) a
> "comprehensive kicking"? ANOTHER comprehensive
> kicking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????!??
> me? Is it just moi, or do others also think that Mr Pears would be
> hard put to "give a comprehensive kicking" even to the likes of THESE
> GUYS?.....
> W-w-w-w-w-w-WHAT? Pears give Breen (that's MOI, guys!) a
> "comprehensive kicking"? ANOTHER comprehensive
> kicking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????!??
> me? Is it just moi, or do others also think that Mr Pears would be
> hard put to "give a comprehensive kicking" even to the likes of THESE
> GUYS?.....
David will deliberately miss the point, evade the facts and then declare
himself the victor. Samn old tactic every time.
himself the victor. Samn old tactic every time.
His most recent dubious effort was:
His assertion that 30 year old T72 tanks under camoflage are weapons of mass
destruction - demanding immediate invasion!.
destruction - demanding immediate invasion!.
That one put paid to any credibility he may have had...which was already
extraodinarily low due to prior, similar nonsense posted by him.
extraodinarily low due to prior, similar nonsense posted by him.
I offer it for your consideration as a possible post of the year.
--
Steve
Steve
|
"Steve" <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote in message
news:4L0Ua.7174$9f7.828120@
- show quoted text -
Can you post the reference to this....
|
Redbaiter <do...@email.me> wrote in message news:<3f20...@news.orcon.net.
>
> Or are you in fact the liar???
No, Redbaiter, you know who the liars are. You knew all along, just
like the rest of us, that Bush was lying. But you evidently had some
idea that his dishonesty, and the dishonesty of his British,
Australian and Italian lapdogs, doesn't matter. You've painted
yourself into a corner and there's nothing - NOTHING - you can do to
cover up your foolishness.
- show quoted text -
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
----- George W. Bush January 28, 2003
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
----- George W. Bush January 28, 2003
>
> Or are you in fact the liar???
like the rest of us, that Bush was lying. But you evidently had some
idea that his dishonesty, and the dishonesty of his British,
Australian and Italian lapdogs, doesn't matter. You've painted
yourself into a corner and there's nothing - NOTHING - you can do to
cover up your foolishness.
Shouting loudly and denying the facts aggressively might intimidate
some poor office junior at your place of work, but on this forum, it
just makes you look silly.
some poor office junior at your place of work, but on this forum, it
just makes you look silly.
If you had any ethical standards, you would admit your mistake (or
your moral misjudgement) and get on with your life. Instead though,
you are attempting to fly in the face of all the evidence and just
brazen it out, Blair style, by shouting "Show me the evidence Bush
lied!!!!" - even after we've referred you to THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND
pieces of evidence.
your moral misjudgement) and get on with your life. Instead though,
you are attempting to fly in the face of all the evidence and just
brazen it out, Blair style, by shouting "Show me the evidence Bush
lied!!!!" - even after we've referred you to THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND
pieces of evidence.
Why on earth do you set yourself up like this? Your refusal to
gracefully admit your errors means that you are becoming a byword for
blithering, adamantine irrationality. That's not good....
gracefully admit your errors means that you are becoming a byword for
blithering, adamantine irrationality. That's not good....
|
Breen's Cowardly False Allegations
Morrissey Breen says...
> >
> > You say there's 33000 Bush lies out there, but rather than
> > produce one and substantiate your claims, you waste time writing
> > crap like this??
> >
> > Where's the Bush lie?????
>
> "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
> sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> ----- George W. Bush January 28, 2003
> >
> > You say there's 33000 Bush lies out there, but rather than
> > produce one and substantiate your claims, you waste time writing
> > crap like this??
> >
> > Where's the Bush lie?????
>
> "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
> sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> ----- George W. Bush January 28, 2003
> >
There are some useless wankers posting on this ng Mowwisey, and
you would be down there with the worst of them.
you would be down there with the worst of them.
Unless you can provide something new to the argument, some fact
that has been overlooked by every other poster over the last few
weeks, then all I can say is that if that is the best "lie" you
can come up with then you might as well have not even tried.
that has been overlooked by every other poster over the last few
weeks, then all I can say is that if that is the best "lie" you
can come up with then you might as well have not even tried.
There is absolutely nothing incorrect in the statement you have
so wrongly claimed is a lie. It isn't a lie. Its the truth.
so wrongly claimed is a lie. It isn't a lie. Its the truth.
In fact I reckon you know that. Backed into a corner by your loud
mouthed parroting of trendy commie Bush hating propaganda, you
couldn't come up with anything else.
mouthed parroting of trendy commie Bush hating propaganda, you
couldn't come up with anything else.
You are, as I suggested Mowwisey, the real liar. Not only that
you are a pathetic, cowardly and contemptible sham to propagate
the accusation that anyone is a liar on such non existent
grounds.
you are a pathetic, cowardly and contemptible sham to propagate
the accusation that anyone is a liar on such non existent
grounds.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
|
Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> pointed out the fundamental dishonesty of
David Pears in message
news:<4L0Ua.7174$9f7.8...@
Yours sincerely,
David Pears in message
news:<4L0Ua.7174$9f7.8...@
>
> His most recent dubious effort was:
>
> His assertion that 30 year old T72 tanks under camoflage are weapons of mass
> destruction - demanding immediate invasion!.
>
> That one put paid to any credibility he may have had...which was already
> extraodinarily low due to prior, similar nonsense posted by him.
>
> I offer it for your consideration as a possible post of the year.
> His most recent dubious effort was:
>
> His assertion that 30 year old T72 tanks under camoflage are weapons of mass
> destruction - demanding immediate invasion!.
>
> That one put paid to any credibility he may have had...which was already
> extraodinarily low due to prior, similar nonsense posted by him.
>
> I offer it for your consideration as a possible post of the year.
The secretary for the Daisycutter Sports organisation replies
thusly:....
thusly:....
Daisycutter Sports,
Chez Breen,
Northcote,
AUCKLAND
Chez Breen,
Northcote,
AUCKLAND
25.7.2003
Dear Mr Withers,
Indeed, that post is under active consideration for the list. It
will be voted on at the next meeting. Thank you for your interest.
will be voted on at the next meeting. Thank you for your interest.
Yours sincerely,
Serena Sopwith-Fotherington
(Secretary)
(Secretary)
|
"RK" <us...@the.net> wrote in message news:<6QXTa.7097$9f7.8...@
neatly refers back to the earlier reference to mining, as in this
un-named "French mining guy".
>
> Your posts remind me of that French mining guys
[sic!]> Your posts remind me of that French mining guys
>
>... posts (the one who hates Australia).
>... posts (the one who hates Australia).
What French mining guy? Come on - more detail please!
>
> This must have been how it was like in the beginning - starting
> off with short, personal attack rants at the top level, convinced that anyone cared -
> This must have been how it was like in the beginning - starting
> off with short, personal attack rants at the top level, convinced that anyone cared -
RANTS?!?!?!? This writer's posts are always coolly conceived and
meticulously backed up with evidence. Unlike your own obscure
references to "French mining guys". And, judging by the exasperation
expressed by other posters toward wilful liars like Pears, one would
have thought that PLENTY of people care.
meticulously backed up with evidence. Unlike your own obscure
references to "French mining guys". And, judging by the exasperation
expressed by other posters toward wilful liars like Pears, one would
have thought that PLENTY of people care.
>
> then later on progresing to fully, multi-page mind-dumps
Oh, very clever! Very literary! See how RK's "mind dumps" metaphor> then later on progresing to fully, multi-page mind-dumps
neatly refers back to the earlier reference to mining, as in this
un-named "French mining guy".
>
> triggered by the slightest reference to him in a "bad light". You need to
> have a really long signature though to top it all off.
> triggered by the slightest reference to him in a "bad light". You need to
> have a really long signature though to top it all off.
Hmmmm.... Are you.... are you.... are you saying that this writer
(moi) is like THIS?!?!?!?.....
(moi) is like THIS?!?!?!?.....
|
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> "RK" <us...@the.net> wrote in message
news:<6QXTa.7097$9f7.8...@
>
> >
> > Your posts remind me of that French mining guys
> [sic!]
>
> >
> >... posts (the one who hates Australia).
>
> What French mining guy? Come on - more detail please!
>
Look into the future of your posting style Breen...
> >
> > This must have been how it was like in the beginning - starting
> > off with short, personal attack rants at the top level, convinced that
anyone cared -
>
> RANTS?!?!?!? This writer's posts are always coolly conceived and
> meticulously backed up with evidence. Unlike your own obscure
> references to "French mining guys". And, judging by the exasperation
> expressed by other posters toward wilful liars like Pears, one would
> have thought that PLENTY of people care.
> > This must have been how it was like in the beginning - starting
> > off with short, personal attack rants at the top level, convinced that
anyone cared -
>
> RANTS?!?!?!? This writer's posts are always coolly conceived and
> meticulously backed up with evidence. Unlike your own obscure
> references to "French mining guys". And, judging by the exasperation
> expressed by other posters toward wilful liars like Pears, one would
> have thought that PLENTY of people care.
Try playing the ball etc. etc.
|
Breen's Cowardly False Allegations
Our hard-drinking chum Redbaiter <do...@email.me> continues to rage
against the trendies and commies who just won't take the saintly
George W. Bush at his word. Look what he's written in message
news:<3f2109d9$1...@news.orcon.
> Morrissey Breen says...
>
> > >
> > > You say there's 33000 Bush lies out there, but rather than
> > > produce one and substantiate your claims, you waste time writing
> > > crap like this??
> > >
> > > Where's the Bush lie?????
> >
> > "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
> > sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> > ----- George W. Bush January 28, 2003
> > >
>
> There are some useless wankers posting on this ng Mowwisey
> .... It isn't a lie. Its the truth.... your loud
> mouthed parroting of trendy commie Bush hating propaganda .... you are a pathetic,
> cowardly and contemptible sham....
against the trendies and commies who just won't take the saintly
George W. Bush at his word. Look what he's written in message
news:<3f2109d9$1...@news.orcon.
> Morrissey Breen says...
>
> > >
> > > You say there's 33000 Bush lies out there, but rather than
> > > produce one and substantiate your claims, you waste time writing
> > > crap like this??
> > >
> > > Where's the Bush lie?????
> >
> > "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
> > sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> > ----- George W. Bush January 28, 2003
> > >
>
> There are some useless wankers posting on this ng Mowwisey
> mouthed parroting of trendy commie Bush hating propaganda .... you are a pathetic,
> cowardly and contemptible sham....
So.... if he was not lying, how come he is now saying that it was all
wrong, that the intelligence was faulty and blaming it all on his
faithful lapdogs, the British?
wrong, that the intelligence was faulty and blaming it all on his
faithful lapdogs, the British?
|
"RK" <us...@the.net> wrote in message news:<I_gUa.7299$9f7.8...@
> >
> > What French mining guy? Come on - more detail please!
> >
>
> Look into the future of your posting style Breen...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/i2s9
> > What French mining guy? Come on - more detail please!
> >
>
> Look into the future of your posting style Breen...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/i2s9
Very funny, but I think you are confusing moi with Redbaiter or Berend
de Boer.
de Boer.
>
> Try playing the ball etc. etc.
> Try playing the ball etc. etc.
Aha! So that's your point, is it? You're saying this writer is too
hard on the likes of David Pears. You're saying I should treat them
with kid gloves, and that pussyfooting is preferable to confronting
their bigotry.
hard on the likes of David Pears. You're saying I should treat them
with kid gloves, and that pussyfooting is preferable to confronting
their bigotry.
Here's a promise: this writer will start "playing the ball" when
Pears, WeeWilly, Redbaiter, etc. stop telling lies.
Pears, WeeWilly, Redbaiter, etc. stop telling lies.
|
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> "RK" <us...@the.net> wrote in message
news:<I_gUa.7299$9f7.8...@
>
> > >
> > > What French mining guy? Come on - more detail please!
> > >
> >
> > Look into the future of your posting style Breen...
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/i2s9
>
> Very funny, but I think you are confusing moi with Redbaiter or Berend
> de Boer.
>
No, I was most definitely meaning you.
Look further into the posting history of the aforementioned poster whom I
have likened you to and you might see why I draw the comparison.
Look further into the posting history of the aforementioned poster whom I
have likened you to and you might see why I draw the comparison.
> >
> > Try playing the ball etc. etc.
>
> Aha! So that's your point, is it? You're saying this writer is too
> hard on the likes of David Pears. You're saying I should treat them
> with kid gloves, and that pussyfooting is preferable to confronting
> their bigotry.
>
> Here's a promise: this writer will start "playing the ball" when
> Pears, WeeWilly, Redbaiter, etc. stop telling lies.
> > Try playing the ball etc. etc.
>
> Aha! So that's your point, is it? You're saying this writer is too
> hard on the likes of David Pears. You're saying I should treat them
> with kid gloves, and that pussyfooting is preferable to confronting
> their bigotry.
>
> Here's a promise: this writer will start "playing the ball" when
> Pears, WeeWilly, Redbaiter, etc. stop telling lies.
Why not just refute their arguments instead?
|
Breen's Cowardly False Allegations
Morrissey Breen says...
> > > >
> >
> > There are some useless wankers posting on this ng Mowwisey
> > .... It isn't a lie. Its the truth.... your loud
> > mouthed parroting of trendy commie Bush hating propaganda .... you are a pathetic,
> > cowardly and contemptible sham....
>
> So.... if he was not lying, how come he is now saying that it was all
> wrong, that the intelligence was faulty and blaming it all on his
> faithful lapdogs, the British?
>
> > > >
> >
> > There are some useless wankers posting on this ng Mowwisey
> > .... It isn't a lie. Its the truth.... your loud
> > mouthed parroting of trendy commie Bush hating propaganda .... you are a pathetic,
> > cowardly and contemptible sham....
Misrepresentation is no trouble to lying commies like you is it
Bween?? Maureen O'Dowd all over again.
Bween?? Maureen O'Dowd all over again.
>
> So.... if he was not lying, how come he is now saying that it was all
> wrong, that the intelligence was faulty and blaming it all on his
> faithful lapdogs, the British?
>
Some intelligence was faulty, some was not. That is the nature of
intelligence. The point is that anything given to Bush was
vetted. The 16 word sentence that the Democrats have latched onto
to try and destroy Bush's high standing in the polls, was
cleared, (and the person responsible for clearing it was a
Clinton appointee). The British *still* maintain the intelligence
is good. Everything Bush said he believed had been vetted and was
therefore true.
intelligence. The point is that anything given to Bush was
vetted. The 16 word sentence that the Democrats have latched onto
to try and destroy Bush's high standing in the polls, was
cleared, (and the person responsible for clearing it was a
Clinton appointee). The British *still* maintain the intelligence
is good. Everything Bush said he believed had been vetted and was
therefore true.
That aside, I have looked and I cannot see one news source
calling itself credible that says that Bush outright lied. They
cannot say that. You know why Mowwisey,you pathetic brainwashed
fuckwit?? Because they know he didn't. They know that if they
said outright that Bush lied, they would not be able to prove
such a serious allegation. They need to worry about things like
proof Mowwisey, because they're newspapers and their reputation
is valuable to them.
calling itself credible that says that Bush outright lied. They
cannot say that. You know why Mowwisey,you pathetic brainwashed
fuckwit?? Because they know he didn't. They know that if they
said outright that Bush lied, they would not be able to prove
such a serious allegation. They need to worry about things like
proof Mowwisey, because they're newspapers and their reputation
is valuable to them.
Unlike newsgroup slimeballs like you and Steve Withers, who can
make all kinds of baseless allegations without any loss because
your credibility is non existent to begin with.
make all kinds of baseless allegations without any loss because
your credibility is non existent to begin with.
Sherlock Holmes said that 'after considering the facts logically
one can eliminate the theories that are wrong, and when you have
done that, the theory that remains is most likely the truth no
matter how improbable (to idiots like you Mowwisey) it may seem.'
one can eliminate the theories that are wrong, and when you have
done that, the theory that remains is most likely the truth no
matter how improbable (to idiots like you Mowwisey) it may seem.'
So here we have cretins like you and Withers mindlessly repeating
the Bush lied propaganda. Yet when Redbaiter asks you to supply a
lie to prove your allegations, despite an enormous smokescreen of
garrulous bumbling obfuscation, you can't do it.
the Bush lied propaganda. Yet when Redbaiter asks you to supply a
lie to prove your allegations, despite an enormous smokescreen of
garrulous bumbling obfuscation, you can't do it.
All you can do is point people to countless instances of other
such fuckwits as you and Withers making the same baseless
allegation. Worthless as 'evidence'. Just more hearsay.
such fuckwits as you and Withers making the same baseless
allegation. Worthless as 'evidence'. Just more hearsay.
When you are asked for the evidence Mowwisey, the cold hard
fact is that you cannot deliver. So going by Sherlock Holme's
rule above you're forced, if logic gets to play any part in your
decision making process at all, to come to the conclusion you
find so hard to swallow, and that is that BUSH DIDN'T LIE.
fact is that you cannot deliver. So going by Sherlock Holme's
rule above you're forced, if logic gets to play any part in your
decision making process at all, to come to the conclusion you
find so hard to swallow, and that is that BUSH DIDN'T LIE.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
|
"RK" <us...@the.net> seems a bit lost in message
news:<__rUa.7429$9f7.8...@
recently homed in on this writer - moi - and is attempting to prove
that he - i.e., moi - is some sort of unbalanced, irrational fanatic.
This is clearly a preposterous notion, as mes amis Redbaiter,
WeeWillyWonka and LeftAintRight would, I am sure, readily agree.
are confusing moi with Redbaiter or Berend de Boer.
posting history of the aforementioned poster whom I have likened you
to and you might see why I draw the comparison.
is too hard on the likes of David Pears. You're saying I should treat
them with kid gloves, and that pussyfooting is preferable to
confronting their bigotry. [Breen takes another sip of Pimms, then
stares intently at RK, tapping the end of his finger into RK's chest
as he speaks] Here's a promise: this writer will start "playing the
ball" when Pears, WeeWilly, Redbaiter, etc. stop telling lies.
news:<__rUa.7429$9f7.8...@
recently homed in on this writer - moi - and is attempting to prove
that he - i.e., moi - is some sort of unbalanced, irrational fanatic.
This is clearly a preposterous notion, as mes amis Redbaiter,
WeeWillyWonka and LeftAintRight would, I am sure, readily agree.
As usual, whenever one of these little arguments threatens to become a
bit unwieldy, with three, four and five arrows in front of every line,
and every colour of the rainbow, I have decided to render our
contretemps as a playlet....
bit unwieldy, with three, four and five arrows in front of every line,
and every colour of the rainbow, I have decided to render our
contretemps as a playlet....
SCENE: Public bar of the King's Arms Tavern, Newton, Auckland. 11;30
a.m. Only three people are present - the barman, who is out the back
restocking the Pimms and vodka supplies, and RK and MORRISSEY BREEN.
There is a bit of hand waving and voices sometimes are raised above
the ambient sound of the air conditioning and the background pop
music, but it's a lot more settled and calmer than when Redbaiter is
here. BREEN is siping from a tall glass of Pimms, while RK is
slamming bottle after bottle of Corona beer. Let's join them in mid
conversation....
a.m. Only three people are present - the barman, who is out the back
restocking the Pimms and vodka supplies, and RK and MORRISSEY BREEN.
There is a bit of hand waving and voices sometimes are raised above
the ambient sound of the air conditioning and the background pop
music, but it's a lot more settled and calmer than when Redbaiter is
here. BREEN is siping from a tall glass of Pimms, while RK is
slamming bottle after bottle of Corona beer. Let's join them in mid
conversation....
BREEN: [shouting] What French mining guy? Come on - more detail
please!
please!
RK: [with a look of ineffable smugness] Look into the future of your
posting style Breen...
[pulls out laptop from front of trousers, and plonks it on top of bar.
Logs onto internet. ] There it is Breen. This is your future....
http://tinyurl.com/i2s9 You have a sad and pathetic future to look
forward to, you LOSER.
posting style Breen...
[pulls out laptop from front of trousers, and plonks it on top of bar.
Logs onto internet. ] There it is Breen. This is your future....
http://tinyurl.com/i2s9 You have a sad and pathetic future to look
forward to, you LOSER.
BREEN: [glances at the message posted in bad English, ENTIRELY IN
CAPITAL LETTERS, by a deranged Frenchman] Very funny, but I think you
CAPITAL LETTERS, by a deranged Frenchman] Very funny, but I think you
are confusing moi with Redbaiter or Berend de Boer.
RK: No, I was most definitely meaning you. Look further into the
posting history of the aforementioned poster whom I have likened you
to and you might see why I draw the comparison.
BREEN: [snorting contemptuously] Is that right? But aren't you the
guy that loftily dismissed those classic comedies The Nanny and
Everyone Loves Raymond as "shitcom". Frankly,RK, I think you know as
much about writing as you do about television.
guy that loftily dismissed those classic comedies The Nanny and
Everyone Loves Raymond as "shitcom". Frankly,RK, I think you know as
much about writing as you do about television.
RK: [wounded, eyes filming slightly with tears] Try playing the ball
etc. etc.
etc. etc.
BREEN: Aha! So that's your point, is it? You're saying this writer
is too hard on the likes of David Pears. You're saying I should treat
them with kid gloves, and that pussyfooting is preferable to
stares intently at RK, tapping the end of his finger into RK's chest
as he speaks] Here's a promise: this writer will start "playing the
ball" when Pears, WeeWilly, Redbaiter, etc. stop telling lies.
RK: [sniffling] Why not just refute their arguments instead?
BREEN: [rolling eyes skyward in exasperation] Jeeeee-zussss WEPT!!!
Good God, man.... I, and DOZENS of other posters have patiently
refuted their "arguments" (as you choose to term their wilful campaign
of lying and stalling and obfuscation) and they sneeringly refuse to
engage in any constructive debate. We'd have been better off trying
to reason with a freaking mud brick. We'd get better feedback from
PLANKTON. [stops abruptly] Awwwww, hey now, RK, don't take it so
hard, buddy. My batman, Scrooge, will be here soon, and we'll all go
back to my place and listen to parliamentary question time on the
radio, while Scrooge rustles us up some cordon bleu cookery. Whaddya
say, RK?
Good God, man.... I, and DOZENS of other posters have patiently
refuted their "arguments" (as you choose to term their wilful campaign
of lying and stalling and obfuscation) and they sneeringly refuse to
engage in any constructive debate. We'd have been better off trying
to reason with a freaking mud brick. We'd get better feedback from
PLANKTON. [stops abruptly] Awwwww, hey now, RK, don't take it so
hard, buddy. My batman, Scrooge, will be here soon, and we'll all go
back to my place and listen to parliamentary question time on the
radio, while Scrooge rustles us up some cordon bleu cookery. Whaddya
say, RK?
|
Breen's Cowardly False Allegations
Redbaiter <do...@email.me> wrote in message news:<3f230da3>
> Sherlock Holmes said that 'after considering the facts logically
> one can eliminate the theories that are wrong, and when you have
> done that, the theory that remains is most likely the truth no
> matter how improbable (to idiots like you Mowwisey) it may seem.'
>
> Sherlock Holmes said that 'after considering the facts logically
> one can eliminate the theories that are wrong, and when you have
> done that, the theory that remains is most likely the truth no
> matter how improbable (to idiots like you Mowwisey) it may seem.'
>
So going by Sherlock Holme's
> rule above
> rule above
Sherlock Holmes the fictional detective ???????????
|
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> "RK" <us...@the.net> seems a bit lost in message
> news:<__rUa.7429$9f7.8...@
> recently homed in on this writer - moi - and is attempting to prove
> that he - i.e., moi - is some sort of unbalanced, irrational fanatic.
> This is clearly a preposterous notion, as mes amis Redbaiter,
> WeeWillyWonka and LeftAintRight would, I am sure, readily agree.
>
> As usual, whenever one of these little arguments threatens to become a
> bit unwieldy, with three, four and five arrows in front of every line,
> and every colour of the rainbow, I have decided to render our
> contretemps as a playlet....
>
> SCENE: Public bar of the King's Arms Tavern, Newton, Auckland. 11;30
> a.m. Only three people are present - the barman, who is out the back
> restocking the Pimms and vodka supplies, and RK and MORRISSEY BREEN.
This is another classic example.
You can't take the slightest bit of criticism about your posting style /
points of view, and rather than refute the points - you make it completely
personal and go off into some fantasy world where you are the victor in some
bizarre encounter.
You can't take the slightest bit of criticism about your posting style /
points of view, and rather than refute the points - you make it completely
personal and go off into some fantasy world where you are the victor in some
bizarre encounter.
Why not just refute the points made?
|
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:27:59 +1200, "RK" <us...@the.net> wrote:
>> His most recent dubious effort was:
>>
>> His assertion that 30 year old T72 tanks under camoflage are weapons of
>mass
>> destruction - demanding immediate invasion!.
>>
>> That one put paid to any credibility he may have had...which was already
>> extraodinarily low due to prior, similar nonsense posted by him.
>>
>> I offer it for your consideration as a possible post of the year.
>
>Can you post the reference to this....
>>
>> His assertion that 30 year old T72 tanks under camoflage are weapons of
>mass
>> destruction - demanding immediate invasion!.
>>
>> That one put paid to any credibility he may have had...which was already
>> extraodinarily low due to prior, similar nonsense posted by him.
>>
>> I offer it for your consideration as a possible post of the year.
>
>Can you post the reference to this....
He cannot, as it is a figment of his imagination. I have corrected him
the previous two times that he has made this claim. But he continues
to lie.
the previous two times that he has made this claim. But he continues
to lie.
It used to be that Steve posted some reasonably interesting stuff. But
with his record of recent non stop lieing, you really have to double
check everything he says. And who has the time for that? It's easier
just to assume that he is an irony free zone, misrepresenting someone
or making something up, and then file him away in the sad loons
section of the group, along with Dunford, Breen, and Fitzgerald.
with his record of recent non stop lieing, you really have to double
check everything he says. And who has the time for that? It's easier
just to assume that he is an irony free zone, misrepresenting someone
or making something up, and then file him away in the sad loons
section of the group, along with Dunford, Breen, and Fitzgerald.
David
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:38:56 +1200, Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote:
>David will deliberately miss the point, evade the facts and then declare
>himself the victor. Samn old tactic every time.
>
>His most recent dubious effort was:
>
>His assertion that 30 year old T72 tanks under camoflage are weapons of mass
>destruction - demanding immediate invasion!.
>
>That one put paid to any credibility he may have had...which was already
>extraodinarily low due to prior, similar nonsense posted by him.
>
>I offer it for your consideration as a possible post of the year.
>himself the victor. Samn old tactic every time.
>
>His most recent dubious effort was:
>
>His assertion that 30 year old T72 tanks under camoflage are weapons of mass
>destruction - demanding immediate invasion!.
>
>That one put paid to any credibility he may have had...which was already
>extraodinarily low due to prior, similar nonsense posted by him.
>
>I offer it for your consideration as a possible post of the year.
Steve... this is the third time that you have said that I called T72
tanks "weapons of mass destruction". I did not. I have corrected you
on the two previous occasions. Yet you make the claim again.
tanks "weapons of mass destruction". I did not. I have corrected you
on the two previous occasions. Yet you make the claim again.
You lie Steve.
You call George Bush a liar, and then you do it yourself. Blatantly.
Over and over again. No sense of irony at all.
Over and over again. No sense of irony at all.
I'm ok with this... People can check Google and can see that you
continue to make up a lot of shite. But why do you have to be such a
smarmy wanker while you're at it?
continue to make up a lot of shite. But why do you have to be such a
smarmy wanker while you're at it?
David
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of th e Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
The increasingly ridiculous and desperate David Pears
<dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> tries to come over as all offended in
message news:<nft6ivoqss0861v58trjs247
demonstrate his loyalty to the honest and humane world leader (except
he scorns the United Nations) and backed up that lie. Which means
Pears supports that lie. Which is just as bad, one would have
thought, as telling it.
probably explains the tone of steadily increasing hysteria evident in
his posts, and especially the name-calling.
>
> You call George Bush a liar,
Hilarious! The guy is trying to portray Steve as some kind of looney
extremist because he is calling Bush a liar. The whole world's
wrong! He's as honest as the day is long, is George W. Bush! He's as
honest as Abe Lincoln! He's just a really, really honest president.
He's an honest man! Just like his honest supporters Donald ("Blame
the Brits") Rumsfeld, Colin ("My Lai didn't happen") Powell, Dick
("Don't listen to my commie daughter") Cheney, Condoleezza ("Spell my
name right, asshole!") Rice, John ("Photo cropper") Howard, Tony ("45
seconds!") Blair, and that incredibly, unbelievably honest Italian
prime minister Silvio ("Mafia contacts?!!!??!?!? MOI?!?!?!?")
Berlusconi. As honest as David ("They kill Iraqis because they care")
Pears.
someone else has no sense of irony!!! Someone who, with his
hilarious irony-free statements is making the Post of the Year contest
a virtual one horse race, is now pronouncing others to lack irony.
Quelle ironie!!!
that leads to Steve and others (including moi) being so
concerned/astonished/amused by the antics of this smug liar, consider
the following, which Pears posted on this group on May 6th...
******************************
In the case of George Bush and Iraq, most of the lies turn out to be
made by the people throwing unfounded accusations at Bush. Far from
attempting to "justify or explain away" these lies, I condemn them.
******************************
How many lies can YOU spot in those two sentences?
<dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> tries to come over as all offended in
message news:<nft6ivoqss0861v58trjs247
>
> Steve... this is the third time that you have said that I called T72
> tanks "weapons of mass destruction". I did not.
George W. Bush told that lie. David Pears, foolishly, chose to> Steve... this is the third time that you have said that I called T72
> tanks "weapons of mass destruction". I did not.
demonstrate his loyalty to the honest and humane world leader (except
he scorns the United Nations) and backed up that lie. Which means
Pears supports that lie. Which is just as bad, one would have
thought, as telling it.
>
> I have corrected you on the two previous occasions. Yet you make the claim again.
>
> You lie Steve.
No, Steve tells the truth. Pears knows this, of course, which> I have corrected you on the two previous occasions. Yet you make the claim again.
>
> You lie Steve.
probably explains the tone of steadily increasing hysteria evident in
his posts, and especially the name-calling.
>
> You call George Bush a liar,
extremist because he is calling Bush a liar. The whole world's
wrong! He's as honest as the day is long, is George W. Bush! He's as
honest as Abe Lincoln! He's just a really, really honest president.
He's an honest man! Just like his honest supporters Donald ("Blame
the Brits") Rumsfeld, Colin ("My Lai didn't happen") Powell, Dick
("Don't listen to my commie daughter") Cheney, Condoleezza ("Spell my
name right, asshole!") Rice, John ("Photo cropper") Howard, Tony ("45
seconds!") Blair, and that incredibly, unbelievably honest Italian
prime minister Silvio ("Mafia contacts?!!!??!?!? MOI?!?!?!?")
Berlusconi. As honest as David ("They kill Iraqis because they care")
Pears.
....and then you do it yourself. Blatantly.
No, David Pears is blatant. Steve is just uncompromising, which a
liar like Pears finds extremely irritating.
liar like Pears finds extremely irritating.
>
> Over and over again. No sense of irony at all.
HILARIOUS! One of George W. Bush's most fanatical stooges is claiming> Over and over again. No sense of irony at all.
someone else has no sense of irony!!! Someone who, with his
hilarious irony-free statements is making the Post of the Year contest
a virtual one horse race, is now pronouncing others to lack irony.
Quelle ironie!!!
>
> I'm ok with this...
> I'm ok with this...
Yeah right.
>
> People can check Google and can see that you
> continue to make up a lot of shite.
Steve makes up nothing. In case anyone is wondering just what it is> People can check Google and can see that you
> continue to make up a lot of shite.
that leads to Steve and others (including moi) being so
concerned/astonished/amused by the antics of this smug liar, consider
the following, which Pears posted on this group on May 6th...
******************************
In the case of George Bush and Iraq, most of the lies turn out to be
made by the people throwing unfounded accusations at Bush. Far from
attempting to "justify or explain away" these lies, I condemn them.
******************************
How many lies can YOU spot in those two sentences?
But Pears is not finished yet! He has something more to say to
Steve...
Steve...
>
> But why do you have to be such a
> smarmy wanker while you're at it?
> But why do you have to be such a
> smarmy wanker while you're at it?
See what I mean about the name-calling?
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
I've checked Google and this message-ID shows that Steve is correct:
<nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54osn6
<nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54osn6
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:23:42 +1200, Redbaiter <do...@email.me> wrote:
>
>--
>Redbaiter
>In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
>Jason M says...
>
>>
>> I've checked Google
>
>And what the fuck would it have to do you smug snooping sick
>making creep??
>
>Fuck off out of here.
>
>>
>> I've checked Google
>
>And what the fuck would it have to do you smug snooping sick
>making creep??
>
>Fuck off out of here.
>
>--
>Redbaiter
>In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Because David Pears said "People can check Google"
so I did, and he's lying.
so I did, and he's lying.
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:14:18 GMT, jma...@very.hotmail.com (Jason M)
wrote:
wrote:
>>Steve... this is the third time that you have said that I called T72
>>tanks "weapons of mass destruction". I did not. I have corrected you
>>on the two previous occasions. Yet you make the claim again.
>>
>>You lie Steve.
>>
>>You call George Bush a liar, and then you do it yourself. Blatantly.
>>Over and over again. No sense of irony at all.
>>
>>I'm ok with this... People can check Google and can see that you
>>continue to make up a lot of shite. But why do you have to be such a
>>smarmy wanker while you're at it?
>
>I've checked Google and this message-ID shows that Steve is correct:
><nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54osn
>>tanks "weapons of mass destruction". I did not. I have corrected you
>>on the two previous occasions. Yet you make the claim again.
>>
>>You lie Steve.
>>
>>You call George Bush a liar, and then you do it yourself. Blatantly.
>>Over and over again. No sense of irony at all.
>>
>>I'm ok with this... People can check Google and can see that you
>>continue to make up a lot of shite. But why do you have to be such a
>>smarmy wanker while you're at it?
>
>I've checked Google and this message-ID shows that Steve is correct:
><nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54osn
You have reading comprehension problems here, Jason. This is the post
you just referenced...
you just referenced...
>>Where IS the proof that leaves no doubt that Bush spoke of below?
>>
>>"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
>>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
>>weapons ever devised."
>>
>>George W. Bush
>>March 17, 2003
>
>I don't know what media you follow Steve, but I saw plenty of photos
>of the liberating forces passing T72s on their way to Baghdad. I also
>saw pictures of Australian troops clearing mines out of Iraqi
>harbours, and standing by MiG fighter aircraft. Some of the T72s were
>dug in, the mines were scattered around under water, and the aircraft
>were covered in camoflage netting. Possess is true. Conceal is true.
>And if you don't believe in most lethal, then try them out one on one
>against any kit the NZ defence forces own.
>
>So, on this one it is case closed. George Bush was telling the truth.
>By calling Bush a liar, you turn out to be telling lies. I doubt
>you'll see the irony.
>
>David
>>
>>"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
>>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
>>weapons ever devised."
>>
>>George W. Bush
>>March 17, 2003
>
>I don't know what media you follow Steve, but I saw plenty of photos
>of the liberating forces passing T72s on their way to Baghdad. I also
>saw pictures of Australian troops clearing mines out of Iraqi
>harbours, and standing by MiG fighter aircraft. Some of the T72s were
>dug in, the mines were scattered around under water, and the aircraft
>were covered in camoflage netting. Possess is true. Conceal is true.
>And if you don't believe in most lethal, then try them out one on one
>against any kit the NZ defence forces own.
>
>So, on this one it is case closed. George Bush was telling the truth.
>By calling Bush a liar, you turn out to be telling lies. I doubt
>you'll see the irony.
>
>David
Notice that no where is "weapons of mass destruction" mentioned.
Neither by myself or George Bush. I was pointing out to Steve that
George Bush did not mention weapons of mass destruction, but "some of
the most lethal weapons ever devised". In which case the quote was
accurate, and therefore Steve's attempt to paint this as a Bush lie
was dishonest.
Neither by myself or George Bush. I was pointing out to Steve that
George Bush did not mention weapons of mass destruction, but "some of
the most lethal weapons ever devised". In which case the quote was
accurate, and therefore Steve's attempt to paint this as a Bush lie
was dishonest.
Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
even read it?
even read it?
David
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On 27 Jul 2003 02:51:20 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Breen) wrote:
>HILARIOUS! One of George W. Bush's most fanatical stooges is claiming
>someone else has no sense of irony!!! Someone who, with his
>hilarious irony-free statements is making the Post of the Year contest
>a virtual one horse race, is now pronouncing others to lack irony.
>Quelle ironie!!!
>someone else has no sense of irony!!! Someone who, with his
>hilarious irony-free statements is making the Post of the Year contest
>a virtual one horse race, is now pronouncing others to lack irony.
>Quelle ironie!!!
Do you live on a different planet than the rest of us? In the real
world, posters slap you down and make you look like a half witt. On
Planet Breen you have an imaginery conversation with "them" and come
out on tops. Then you institute imaginery awards for the posters who
make you look most foolish.
world, posters slap you down and make you look like a half witt. On
Planet Breen you have an imaginery conversation with "them" and come
out on tops. Then you institute imaginery awards for the posters who
make you look most foolish.
It's all a bit pathetic really.
Fact: Despite hundreds of posts from the likes of Withers, no one has
been able to make an even half way decent case that George Bush lied.
been able to make an even half way decent case that George Bush lied.
Fact: Rather than address the inadequacies of your case, you guys rely
on repetition. Like when Bates challenged you to present even one
quote from George Bush that showed him telling a lie, and your
laughable response was based on quantity of posts to newsgroups.
on repetition. Like when Bates challenged you to present even one
quote from George Bush that showed him telling a lie, and your
laughable response was based on quantity of posts to newsgroups.
Fact: When people point out the sad state of your arguments, or that
repetition does not equal accuracy, then you attack the person doing
the pointing out. Some people might be put off by being criticised by
the deranged. But tough, I'm going to continue to point out just what
a bunch of net loons you guys are.
repetition does not equal accuracy, then you attack the person doing
the pointing out. Some people might be put off by being criticised by
the deranged. But tough, I'm going to continue to point out just what
a bunch of net loons you guys are.
And here's the biggie...
Fact: If you and Withers had your way, Saddam Hussein would be free to
carry on murdering the people of Iraq, and those in neighbouring
countries. Because...
carry on murdering the people of Iraq, and those in neighbouring
countries. Because...
Fact: The minute the UN gets to have a veto on moral arguments, which
is what Withers wants (altho I doubt if you have given the issue even
half a thought), then France gets to make the effective decision. And
weapons sales and oil contracts are more important to France than the
deaths of millions of Arabs.
is what Withers wants (altho I doubt if you have given the issue even
half a thought), then France gets to make the effective decision. And
weapons sales and oil contracts are more important to France than the
deaths of millions of Arabs.
Saddam lost. Bush won. The Iraqi people are free and have the chance
to turn themselves in to a decent country. Get over it.
to turn themselves in to a decent country. Get over it.
David
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of th e Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
After being caught lying by Steve, that smooth and unabashed liar
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> attempted to brazen it out
by issuing a challenge to "check out" what he'd written on Google.
Perhaps he thought that nobody would bother, that we would all just
accept his haranguing us as "proof" that he was telling the truth.
Of course, he had no alternative to this crude bluff except silence,
and he seems constitutionally incapable of keeping quiet. Let's look
at what he wrote in message
news:<nsh7ivos3m7k4rt7l18chjl2
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> attempted to brazen it out
by issuing a challenge to "check out" what he'd written on Google.
Perhaps he thought that nobody would bother, that we would all just
accept his haranguing us as "proof" that he was telling the truth.
Of course, he had no alternative to this crude bluff except silence,
and he seems constitutionally incapable of keeping quiet. Let's look
at what he wrote in message
news:<nsh7ivos3m7k4rt7l18chjl2
> >>
> >>I'm ok with this... People can check Google and can see that you
> >>continue to make up a lot of shite. But why do you have to be such a
> >>smarmy wanker while you're at it?
> >>I'm ok with this... People can check Google and can see that you
> >>continue to make up a lot of shite. But why do you have to be such a
> >>smarmy wanker while you're at it?
Then, fatally for Pears' credibility, Jason M actually checked out his
claim and found he'd been lying like a president....
> >
> >I've checked Google and this message-ID shows that Steve is correct:
> ><nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54osn
claim and found he'd been lying like a president....
> >
> >I've checked Google and this message-ID shows that Steve is correct:
> ><nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54osn
No problem for Pears though! He decides to get pedantic and quibbles
like an O.J. Simpson defense team lawyer....
>
> You have reading comprehension problems here, Jason. This is the post
> you just referenced...
>
> >>Where IS the proof that leaves no doubt that Bush spoke of below?
> >>
> >>"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
> >>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
> >>weapons ever devised."
> >>
> >>George W. Bush
> >>March 17, 2003
> >
> >I don't know what media you follow Steve, but I saw plenty of photos
> >of the liberating forces passing T72s on their way to Baghdad. I also
> >saw pictures of Australian troops clearing mines out of Iraqi
> >harbours, and standing by MiG fighter aircraft. Some of the T72s were
> >dug in, the mines were scattered around under water, and the aircraft
> >were covered in camoflage netting. Possess is true. Conceal is true.
> >And if you don't believe in most lethal, then try them out one on one
> >against any kit the NZ defence forces own.
> >
> >So, on this one it is case closed. George Bush was telling the truth.
> >By calling Bush a liar, you turn out to be telling lies. I doubt
> >you'll see the irony.
> >
> >David
like an O.J. Simpson defense team lawyer....
>
> You have reading comprehension problems here, Jason. This is the post
> you just referenced...
>
> >>Where IS the proof that leaves no doubt that Bush spoke of below?
> >>
> >>"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
> >>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
> >>weapons ever devised."
> >>
> >>George W. Bush
> >>March 17, 2003
> >
> >I don't know what media you follow Steve, but I saw plenty of photos
> >of the liberating forces passing T72s on their way to Baghdad. I also
> >saw pictures of Australian troops clearing mines out of Iraqi
> >harbours, and standing by MiG fighter aircraft. Some of the T72s were
> >dug in, the mines were scattered around under water, and the aircraft
> >were covered in camoflage netting. Possess is true. Conceal is true.
> >And if you don't believe in most lethal, then try them out one on one
> >against any kit the NZ defence forces own.
> >
> >So, on this one it is case closed. George Bush was telling the truth.
> >By calling Bush a liar, you turn out to be telling lies. I doubt
> >you'll see the irony.
> >
> >David
We all see the irony all right. Even Pears does. Especially Pears.
He is on the internet, where his rabid and unashamed lying will stand
in perpetuity, and he is spraying round accusations that everybody
else is a liar, and that a politician who is even now admitting that
he lied - BUT IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF THOSE USELESS BRITS AND THEIR
SHONKY INTELLIGENCE!!!! - is NOT lying.
He is on the internet, where his rabid and unashamed lying will stand
in perpetuity, and he is spraying round accusations that everybody
else is a liar, and that a politician who is even now admitting that
he lied - BUT IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF THOSE USELESS BRITS AND THEIR
SHONKY INTELLIGENCE!!!! - is NOT lying.
>
> Notice that no where is "weapons of mass destruction" mentioned.
> Neither by myself or George Bush. I was pointing out to Steve that
> George Bush did not mention weapons of mass destruction, but "some of
> the most lethal weapons ever devised". In which case the quote was
> accurate, and therefore Steve's attempt to paint this as a Bush lie
> was dishonest.
> Notice that no where is "weapons of mass destruction" mentioned.
> Neither by myself or George Bush. I was pointing out to Steve that
> George Bush did not mention weapons of mass destruction, but "some of
> the most lethal weapons ever devised". In which case the quote was
> accurate, and therefore Steve's attempt to paint this as a Bush lie
> was dishonest.
He mentioned these (fictional) "Weapons of Mass Destruction" on
January 28 in his State of the Union address, and he and his
"advisers" used the term hundreds of times before and after. "Some
of the most lethal weapons ever devised" means "weapons of mass
destruction", and Pears knows it as well as everybody else.
>
> Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
> even read it?
January 28 in his State of the Union address, and he and his
"advisers" used the term hundreds of times before and after. "Some
of the most lethal weapons ever devised" means "weapons of mass
destruction", and Pears knows it as well as everybody else.
>
> Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
> even read it?
Ha! He read it, all right. Pears has been caught out.
Again.
Again.
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On 27 Jul 2003 11:02:40 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
>> Notice that no where is "weapons of mass destruction" mentioned.
>> Neither by myself or George Bush. I was pointing out to Steve that
>> George Bush did not mention weapons of mass destruction, but "some of
>> the most lethal weapons ever devised". In which case the quote was
>> accurate, and therefore Steve's attempt to paint this as a Bush lie
>> was dishonest.
>
>He mentioned these (fictional) "Weapons of Mass Destruction" on
>January 28 in his State of the Union address, and he and his
>"advisers" used the term hundreds of times before and after. "Some
>of the most lethal weapons ever devised" means "weapons of mass
>destruction", and Pears knows it as well as everybody else.
And what does any of this have to do with the lies that Withers posted
about me? Zilch.
>> Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
>> even read it?
>
>Ha! He read it, all right. Pears has been caught out.
>
>Again.
Breen) wrote:
>After being caught lying by Steve, that smooth and unabashed liar
>David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> attempted to brazen it out
>by issuing a challenge to "check out" what he'd written on Google.
>Perhaps he thought that nobody would bother, that we would all just
>accept his haranguing us as "proof" that he was telling the truth.
>Of course, he had no alternative to this crude bluff except silence,
>and he seems constitutionally incapable of keeping quiet. Let's look
>at what he wrote in message
>news:<nsh7ivos3m7k4rt7l18chjl
>
>> >>
>> >>I'm ok with this... People can check Google and can see that you
>> >>continue to make up a lot of shite. But why do you have to be such a
>> >>smarmy wanker while you're at it?
>
>Then, fatally for Pears' credibility, Jason M actually checked out his
>claim and found he'd been lying like a president....
>David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> attempted to brazen it out
>by issuing a challenge to "check out" what he'd written on Google.
>Perhaps he thought that nobody would bother, that we would all just
>accept his haranguing us as "proof" that he was telling the truth.
>Of course, he had no alternative to this crude bluff except silence,
>and he seems constitutionally incapable of keeping quiet. Let's look
>at what he wrote in message
>news:<nsh7ivos3m7k4rt7l18chjl
>
>> >>
>> >>I'm ok with this... People can check Google and can see that you
>> >>continue to make up a lot of shite. But why do you have to be such a
>> >>smarmy wanker while you're at it?
>
>Then, fatally for Pears' credibility, Jason M actually checked out his
>claim and found he'd been lying like a president....
Actually, as shown in the post itself, I was telling the truth. Steve
Withers lied, three times. And Jason, unfortunately, has comprehension
problems. And possibly needs to get his eyes checked as he reads
"weapons of mass destruction" where it does not appear in the text.
Withers lied, three times. And Jason, unfortunately, has comprehension
problems. And possibly needs to get his eyes checked as he reads
"weapons of mass destruction" where it does not appear in the text.
>> >I've checked Google and this message-ID shows that Steve is correct:
>> ><nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54osn
>
>No problem for Pears though! He decides to get pedantic and quibbles
>like an O.J. Simpson defense team lawyer....
>> ><nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54osn
>
>No problem for Pears though! He decides to get pedantic and quibbles
>like an O.J. Simpson defense team lawyer....
Unable to win this argument, or any argument, actually, Breen goes off
on one of his tangents. Not writing an imaginery conversation where he
bests those that make him look like an idiot in real life. Not by
inventing some awards with a cast of imaginery characters. But by
steering the post in a completely unrelated direction. Bizzarre. And
sad.
on one of his tangents. Not writing an imaginery conversation where he
bests those that make him look like an idiot in real life. Not by
inventing some awards with a cast of imaginery characters. But by
steering the post in a completely unrelated direction. Bizzarre. And
sad.
- show quoted text -
Notice that what I'm accused of has no relation whatsoever with
anything I wrote. Or maybe this is what I said to Breen in one of the
imaginary conversations he has written for me. Clue: If you're going
to accuse someone of doing something or saying something, then snip
off the evidence that you're making the whole thing up. This is what
Withers does, altho he was caught out by DPF a few days ago when he
forgot to snip the evidence of his own lies.
anything I wrote. Or maybe this is what I said to Breen in one of the
imaginary conversations he has written for me. Clue: If you're going
to accuse someone of doing something or saying something, then snip
off the evidence that you're making the whole thing up. This is what
Withers does, altho he was caught out by DPF a few days ago when he
forgot to snip the evidence of his own lies.
>> Notice that no where is "weapons of mass destruction" mentioned.
>> Neither by myself or George Bush. I was pointing out to Steve that
>> George Bush did not mention weapons of mass destruction, but "some of
>> the most lethal weapons ever devised". In which case the quote was
>> accurate, and therefore Steve's attempt to paint this as a Bush lie
>> was dishonest.
>
>He mentioned these (fictional) "Weapons of Mass Destruction" on
>January 28 in his State of the Union address, and he and his
>"advisers" used the term hundreds of times before and after. "Some
>of the most lethal weapons ever devised" means "weapons of mass
>destruction", and Pears knows it as well as everybody else.
about me? Zilch.
>> Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
>> even read it?
>
>Ha! He read it, all right. Pears has been caught out.
>
>Again.
Are you an unfunny (unless you're in to camp) troll? Or are you just
the stupidest poster to ever grace the nz. newsgroups? This one could
go either way, but since you're regularly humiliated by Redbaiter and
Bobs, then I'd go for the stupid explanation.
the stupidest poster to ever grace the nz. newsgroups? This one could
go either way, but since you're regularly humiliated by Redbaiter and
Bobs, then I'd go for the stupid explanation.
David
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:44:58 GMT, David Pears
<dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm ok with this... People can check Google and can see that you
>>>continue to make up a lot of shite. But why do you have to be such a
>>>smarmy wanker while you're at it?
>>
<dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:14:18 GMT, jma...@very.hotmail.com (Jason M)
>wrote:
>
>>>Steve... this is the third time that you have said that I called T72
>>>tanks "weapons of mass destruction". I did not. I have corrected you
>>>on the two previous occasions. Yet you make the claim again.
>>>
>>>You lie Steve.
>>>
>>>You call George Bush a liar, and then you do it yourself. Blatantly.
>>>Over and over again. No sense of irony at all.
>wrote:
>
>>>Steve... this is the third time that you have said that I called T72
>>>tanks "weapons of mass destruction". I did not. I have corrected you
>>>on the two previous occasions. Yet you make the claim again.
>>>
>>>You lie Steve.
>>>
>>>You call George Bush a liar, and then you do it yourself. Blatantly.
>>>Over and over again. No sense of irony at all.
>>>
>>>I'm ok with this... People can check Google and can see that you
>>>continue to make up a lot of shite. But why do you have to be such a
>>>smarmy wanker while you're at it?
>>
>>I've checked Google and this message-ID shows that Steve is correct:
>><nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54os
>
>><nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54os
>
>You have reading comprehension problems here, Jason. This is the post
>you just referenced...
>
>>>Where IS the proof that leaves no doubt that Bush spoke of below?
>>>
>>>"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
>>>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
>>>weapons ever devised."
>>>
>>>George W. Bush
>>>March 17, 2003
>>
>>I don't know what media you follow Steve, but I saw plenty of photos
>>of the liberating forces passing T72s on their way to Baghdad. I also
>>saw pictures of Australian troops clearing mines out of Iraqi
>>harbours, and standing by MiG fighter aircraft. Some of the T72s were
>>dug in, the mines were scattered around under water, and the aircraft
>>were covered in camoflage netting. Possess is true. Conceal is true.
>>And if you don't believe in most lethal, then try them out one on one
>>against any kit the NZ defence forces own.
>>
>>So, on this one it is case closed. George Bush was telling the truth.
>>By calling Bush a liar, you turn out to be telling lies. I doubt
>>you'll see the irony.
>>
>>David
>
>you just referenced...
>
>>>Where IS the proof that leaves no doubt that Bush spoke of below?
>>>
>>>"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
>>>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
>>>weapons ever devised."
>>>
>>>George W. Bush
>>>March 17, 2003
>>
>>I don't know what media you follow Steve, but I saw plenty of photos
>>of the liberating forces passing T72s on their way to Baghdad. I also
>>saw pictures of Australian troops clearing mines out of Iraqi
>>harbours, and standing by MiG fighter aircraft. Some of the T72s were
>>dug in, the mines were scattered around under water, and the aircraft
>>were covered in camoflage netting. Possess is true. Conceal is true.
>>And if you don't believe in most lethal, then try them out one on one
>>against any kit the NZ defence forces own.
>>
>>So, on this one it is case closed. George Bush was telling the truth.
>>By calling Bush a liar, you turn out to be telling lies. I doubt
>>you'll see the irony.
>>
>>David
>
>Notice that no where is "weapons of mass destruction" mentioned.
>Neither by myself or George Bush. I was pointing out to Steve that
>George Bush did not mention weapons of mass destruction, but "some of
>the most lethal weapons ever devised". In which case the quote was
>accurate, and therefore Steve's attempt to paint this as a Bush lie
>was dishonest.
>
>Neither by myself or George Bush. I was pointing out to Steve that
>George Bush did not mention weapons of mass destruction, but "some of
>the most lethal weapons ever devised". In which case the quote was
>accurate, and therefore Steve's attempt to paint this as a Bush lie
>was dishonest.
>
>Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
>even read it?
>even read it?
As "proof" to support the Bush claim "Iraq regime continues to possess
and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised", you replied
giving examples, first of T72s, then of mines and MiGs.
and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised", you replied
giving examples, first of T72s, then of mines and MiGs.
It is quite obvious that "the most lethal weapons ever devised"
include "Weapons of Mass Destruction" so clearly you regard T72s,
mines and MiGs as WMD.
include "Weapons of Mass Destruction" so clearly you regard T72s,
mines and MiGs as WMD.
Are you trying to say that the WMD that do exist elsewhere are *not*
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised?
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised?
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:24:28 +1200, Redbaiter <do...@email.me> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Then, fatally for Pears' credibility, Jason M actually checked out his
>> claim and found he'd been lying like a president....
>> > >
>similar stalking false accuser as the fake named snooping creep
>"Jason Mamford".
>
>The post in question refers to "lethal weapons:, not WMD. You
>once again Mowwisey are exposed as the real liar.
>
>--
>Redbaiter
>In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
>Morrissey Breen says...
>>
>>
>> Then, fatally for Pears' credibility, Jason M actually checked out his
>> claim and found he'd been lying like a president....
>> > >
>> > >I've checked Google and this message-ID shows that Steve is correct:
>> > ><nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54osn
>>
>Not surprising that a lying reprobate like you teams up with a>> > ><nq6vgv8bt1t8p1uq4l1n8qb54osn
>>
>similar stalking false accuser as the fake named snooping creep
>"Jason Mamford".
>
>The post in question refers to "lethal weapons:, not WMD. You
>once again Mowwisey are exposed as the real liar.
>
>--
>Redbaiter
>In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
The post in question refers to "some of the most lethal weapons ever
devised". Quite clearly this also includes WMD wherever they exist (in
the US and UK and Israel for example).
devised". Quite clearly this also includes WMD wherever they exist (in
the US and UK and Israel for example).
I have never posted using the name "Jason Mamford" so you've made yet
another mistake.
another mistake.
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:43:31 GMT, jma...@very.hotmail.com (Jason M)
wrote:
>>even read it?
>
>As "proof" to support the Bush claim "Iraq regime continues to possess
>and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised", you replied
>giving examples, first of T72s, then of mines and MiGs.
>
>It is quite obvious that "the most lethal weapons ever devised"
>include "Weapons of Mass Destruction" so clearly you regard T72s,
>mines and MiGs as WMD.
wrote:
>>Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
>>even read it?
>
>As "proof" to support the Bush claim "Iraq regime continues to possess
>and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised", you replied
>giving examples, first of T72s, then of mines and MiGs.
>
>It is quite obvious that "the most lethal weapons ever devised"
>include "Weapons of Mass Destruction" so clearly you regard T72s,
>mines and MiGs as WMD.
Weapons of mass destruction are a subset of most lethal weapons ever
devised. T72s etc are another subset of most lethal weapons ever
devised. But this does not mean that T72s etc are a subset of weapons
of mass destruction. That is basic set theory that is taught to, IIRC,
6 and 7 year olds.
devised. T72s etc are another subset of most lethal weapons ever
devised. But this does not mean that T72s etc are a subset of weapons
of mass destruction. That is basic set theory that is taught to, IIRC,
6 and 7 year olds.
So, you can add mathematical illiteracy to reading challenged.
>Are you trying to say that the WMD that do exist elsewhere are *not*
>some of the most lethal weapons ever devised?
>some of the most lethal weapons ever devised?
Of course they are. But that is irrelevant.
David
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:52:01 GMT, jma...@very.hotmail.com (Jason M)
wrote:
>devised". Quite clearly this also includes WMD wherever they exist (in
>the US and UK and Israel for example).
wrote:
>The post in question refers to "some of the most lethal weapons ever
>devised". Quite clearly this also includes WMD wherever they exist (in
>the US and UK and Israel for example).
Includes but is not limited too. Therefore George Bush's statement was
correct. As was mine.
correct. As was mine.
I don't expect Steve Withers to apologise. Indeed, he has so little
credibility these days that he'll go on repeating his lies, no matter
how often I correct him.
credibility these days that he'll go on repeating his lies, no matter
how often I correct him.
But I thought you had a bit more integrity Jason. You called me a liar
because you didn't read the subject post properly. Stop making
yourself look silly by misusing set theory and fess up.
because you didn't read the subject post properly. Stop making
yourself look silly by misusing set theory and fess up.
David
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
Jason M allegedly said:
> some of the most lethal weapons ever devised?
>>Notice that no where is "weapons of mass destruction" mentioned.
>>Neither by myself or George Bush. I was pointing out to Steve that
>>George Bush did not mention weapons of mass destruction, but "some of
>>the most lethal weapons ever devised". In which case the quote was
>>accurate, and therefore Steve's attempt to paint this as a Bush lie
>>was dishonest.
>>
>>Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
>>even read it?
>
> As "proof" to support the Bush claim "Iraq regime continues to possess
> and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised", you replied
> giving examples, first of T72s, then of mines and MiGs.
>
> It is quite obvious that "the most lethal weapons ever devised"
> include "Weapons of Mass Destruction" so clearly you regard T72s,
> mines and MiGs as WMD.
>
> Are you trying to say that the WMD that do exist elsewhere are not>>Neither by myself or George Bush. I was pointing out to Steve that
>>George Bush did not mention weapons of mass destruction, but "some of
>>the most lethal weapons ever devised". In which case the quote was
>>accurate, and therefore Steve's attempt to paint this as a Bush lie
>>was dishonest.
>>
>>Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
>>even read it?
>
> As "proof" to support the Bush claim "Iraq regime continues to possess
> and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised", you replied
> giving examples, first of T72s, then of mines and MiGs.
>
> It is quite obvious that "the most lethal weapons ever devised"
> include "Weapons of Mass Destruction" so clearly you regard T72s,
> mines and MiGs as WMD.
>
> some of the most lethal weapons ever devised?
Now you understand why I nominated David Pears for Morrisey's award.
His think profound pedantry is a substitute for the bleeding obvious truth.
He's clearly a contender for Morrisey's award.
--
Steve
Steve
|
Pears wriggles - but can't escape his own pedantry Re: Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
Morrissey Breen allegedly said:
> He mentioned these (fictional) "Weapons of Mass Destruction" on
> January 28 in his State of the Union address, and he and his
> "advisers" used the term hundreds of times before and after. "Some
> of the most lethal weapons ever devised" means "weapons of mass
> destruction", and Pears knows it as well as everybody else.
>
>>
>> Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
>> even read it?
>
> Ha! He read it, all right. Pears has been caught out.
>
> Again.
> January 28 in his State of the Union address, and he and his
> "advisers" used the term hundreds of times before and after. "Some
> of the most lethal weapons ever devised" means "weapons of mass
> destruction", and Pears knows it as well as everybody else.
>
>>
>> Why go to all the trouble of finding the post in Google, and then not
>> even read it?
>
> Ha! He read it, all right. Pears has been caught out.
>
> Again.
Of course. His mistake is to think that pedantry is a substitute for truth.
Anyone with a clue knows that G W Bush invaded iraq becasue heclaimed iraq
had WMDs that were a threat to the US. He referred to hese in various ways
- including "some of the most lethal weapons ever deviced."
had WMDs that were a threat to the US. He referred to hese in various ways
- including "some of the most lethal weapons ever deviced."
Let's put aside the issue of Bush's language usage - as ANY weapon that can
kill is lethal - and death is an absolute (you can't be a little bid dead).
kill is lethal - and death is an absolute (you can't be a little bid dead).
Let's focus on david's response which was - of course there were lethal
weapons, we all saw the T72 tanks - and as for concealed - they were
camoflaged.
weapons, we all saw the T72 tanks - and as for concealed - they were
camoflaged.
As Jason and Morrisey have already pointed out, it takes an award-winning
pratt to like David Pears to claim that 30 year old camoflaged T72 tanks
are the reason bush invaded Iraq.
pratt to like David Pears to claim that 30 year old camoflaged T72 tanks
are the reason bush invaded Iraq.
This simply highlights what we knew to be true already: Pears isn't worth
anyone's time as far as debating is concerned. He simply isn't honest
enough....and won't admit it when confronted with it point blank.
anyone's time as far as debating is concerned. He simply isn't honest
enough....and won't admit it when confronted with it point blank.
Not as rude and abusive as redbaiter.....but in the end - not much different
where truth and honesty are concerned - and this has been a very
instructive example.
where truth and honesty are concerned - and this has been a very
instructive example.
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
David Pears allegedly said:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:52:01 GMT, jma...@very.hotmail.com (Jason M)
> wrote:
>
>>The post in question refers to "some of the most lethal weapons ever
>>devised". Quite clearly this also includes WMD wherever they exist (in
>>the US and UK and Israel for example).
>
> Includes but is not limited too. Therefore George Bush's statement was
> correct. As was mine.
> wrote:
>
>>The post in question refers to "some of the most lethal weapons ever
>>devised". Quite clearly this also includes WMD wherever they exist (in
>>the US and UK and Israel for example).
>
> Includes but is not limited too. Therefore George Bush's statement was
> correct. As was mine.
In context - absolutely NOT correct.
The march 17th speech was the last pre-invasion speech. It laid out what
amounts to Bush's final justification for his attack on Iraq.
amounts to Bush's final justification for his attack on Iraq.
The "most lethal weapons ever devised" is a clear reference to Weapons of
mass destruction in the context of both the speech itself and events
preceding it and following.
mass destruction in the context of both the speech itself and events
preceding it and following.
Your attempt to split hairs are transparent and do you no credit. I do
acknowledge that splitting hairs is your habitual response to be cought
out....
acknowledge that splitting hairs is your habitual response to be cought
out....
I need only apologise for wasting time on a shameless an dishonest pedant
like you.
like you.
There are so many more worthwhile things I could be doing.
--
Steve
Steve
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of th e Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> nicely sees off that smarmy low class
sophist David Pears in message
news:<E1iVa.7952$9f7.9...@
>
> Your attempt to split hairs is transparent and does you no credit. I do
> acknowledge that splitting hairs is your habitual response to be caught out....
It's mere time-wasting by Pears. I'm sure he has successfully
bamboozled many people of his acquaintance with this tactic, but it
doesn't work on the internet, where his lies are so easy to check out.
>
> I need only apologise for wasting time on a shameless and dishonest pedant like you.
No need to apologise! Seeing pears come unstuck by dint of his own
forked tongue is highly amusing! It's kind of a low-rent,
off-Broadway, bush league prelude to what we're going to see happen to
Howard, Blair and, maybe, Bush. There's not much of an opposition in
the U.S. Congress, however, so my hunch is that Bush is likely to get
off scot-free, regardless of his cynical misleading of Congress.
that's fun too, right?
sophist David Pears in message
news:<E1iVa.7952$9f7.9...@
>
> Your attempt to split hairs is transparent and does you no credit. I do
> acknowledge that splitting hairs is your habitual response to be caught out....
It's mere time-wasting by Pears. I'm sure he has successfully
bamboozled many people of his acquaintance with this tactic, but it
doesn't work on the internet, where his lies are so easy to check out.
>
> I need only apologise for wasting time on a shameless and dishonest pedant like you.
No need to apologise! Seeing pears come unstuck by dint of his own
forked tongue is highly amusing! It's kind of a low-rent,
off-Broadway, bush league prelude to what we're going to see happen to
Howard, Blair and, maybe, Bush. There's not much of an opposition in
the U.S. Congress, however, so my hunch is that Bush is likely to get
off scot-free, regardless of his cynical misleading of Congress.
>
> There are so many more worthwhile things I could be doing.
Nope. This is fun. Kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, but hell,> There are so many more worthwhile things I could be doing.
that's fun too, right?
|
Pears wriggles - but can't escape his own pedantry Re: Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> neatly sums up the appalling David Pears
in message news:<1_hVa.7951$9f7.9...@
>
> His mistake is to think that pedantry is a substitute for truth. ......
> Not as rude and abusive as redbaiter.....but in the end - not much different
> where truth and honesty are concerned - and this has been a very
> instructive example.
in message news:<1_hVa.7951$9f7.9...@
>
> His mistake is to think that pedantry is a substitute for truth. ......
> Not as rude and abusive as redbaiter.....but in the end - not much different
> where truth and honesty are concerned - and this has been a very
> instructive example.
HEAR, HEAR!
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:08:20 +1200, Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote:
>>>The post in question refers to "some of the most lethal weapons ever
>>>devised". Quite clearly this also includes WMD wherever they exist (in
>>>the US and UK and Israel for example).
>>
>> Includes but is not limited too. Therefore George Bush's statement was
>> correct. As was mine.
>
>In context - absolutely NOT correct.
>
>The march 17th speech was the last pre-invasion speech. It laid out what
>amounts to Bush's final justification for his attack on Iraq.
>
>The "most lethal weapons ever devised" is a clear reference to Weapons of
>mass destruction in the context of both the speech itself and events
>preceding it and following.
>>>devised". Quite clearly this also includes WMD wherever they exist (in
>>>the US and UK and Israel for example).
>>
>> Includes but is not limited too. Therefore George Bush's statement was
>> correct. As was mine.
>
>In context - absolutely NOT correct.
>
>The march 17th speech was the last pre-invasion speech. It laid out what
>amounts to Bush's final justification for his attack on Iraq.
>
>The "most lethal weapons ever devised" is a clear reference to Weapons of
>mass destruction in the context of both the speech itself and events
>preceding it and following.
OK, so you're saying that it isn't anything that Bush said that made
him a liar, but what he might have been thinking when he said it?
Sorry, but I prefer to go with the obvious everyday meaning of the
words that were actually used.
him a liar, but what he might have been thinking when he said it?
Sorry, but I prefer to go with the obvious everyday meaning of the
words that were actually used.
>Your attempt to split hairs are transparent and do you no credit. I do
>acknowledge that splitting hairs is your habitual response to be cought
>out....
>
>I need only apologise for wasting time on a shameless an dishonest pedant
>like you.
>
>There are so many more worthwhile things I could be doing.
>acknowledge that splitting hairs is your habitual response to be cought
>out....
>
>I need only apologise for wasting time on a shameless an dishonest pedant
>like you.
>
>There are so many more worthwhile things I could be doing.
It appears that you proof that George Bush was dishonest rely on your
own misinterpretation of those words. Which, strangely, is exactly
what you do when you misinterpret my words. How can we understand
anything you say, when you are reserving the right to use words in new
and novel ways?
own misinterpretation of those words. Which, strangely, is exactly
what you do when you misinterpret my words. How can we understand
anything you say, when you are reserving the right to use words in new
and novel ways?
David
|
Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Long ago, you were actually an interesting poster. I recall you having
discussions with people like Robin K that showed different sides of an
issue and often generated a bit of thought. Many of your posts on
issues like MMP were excellent, altho I disagree with you on many
aspects of the electoral system.
discussions with people like Robin K that showed different sides of an
issue and often generated a bit of thought. Many of your posts on
issues like MMP were excellent, altho I disagree with you on many
aspects of the electoral system.
Now, you're reduced to constructing arguments based on the purposeful
misinterpretation of others, and an odd approach to primary school
mathematics. You end up having conversations with a troll about his
imaginary awards, which seem designed to victimise people who show the
stupidity of his arguments and which come complete with an imaginary
person to send "nominations" to. And you've become so boring... 843
posts about telling lies and you still haven't made a half way
reasonable case that George Bush told any.
misinterpretation of others, and an odd approach to primary school
mathematics. You end up having conversations with a troll about his
imaginary awards, which seem designed to victimise people who show the
stupidity of his arguments and which come complete with an imaginary
person to send "nominations" to. And you've become so boring... 843
posts about telling lies and you still haven't made a half way
reasonable case that George Bush told any.
Now all that is sad for you. But the saddest aspect for me is that
I've had to unkillfile Redbaiter, just so that I can watch him slap
you about the newsgroups. I'm torn between popping him back in so I
don't have to read about commies every few posts, or sitting back and
enjoying the whole spectacle.
I've had to unkillfile Redbaiter, just so that I can watch him slap
you about the newsgroups. I'm torn between popping him back in so I
don't have to read about commies every few posts, or sitting back and
enjoying the whole spectacle.
David
|
Pears wriggles - but can't escape his own pedantry Re: Withers lies again... Re: Post of the Year Award (Entry 5: DAVID PEARS)
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:04:28 +1200, Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote:
>Let's focus on david's response which was - of course there were lethal
>weapons, we all saw the T72 tanks - and as for concealed - they were
>camoflaged.
>
>As Jason and Morrisey have already pointed out, it takes an award-winning
>pratt to like David Pears to claim that 30 year old camoflaged T72 tanks
>are the reason bush invaded Iraq.
>weapons, we all saw the T72 tanks - and as for concealed - they were
>camoflaged.
>
>As Jason and Morrisey have already pointed out, it takes an award-winning
>pratt to like David Pears to claim that 30 year old camoflaged T72 tanks
>are the reason bush invaded Iraq.
Oh dear. You can't just admit that your argument was based on willfull
misinterpretation of what George Bush said to match what you would
have liked him to have said. So you set out to dig yourself in to
another hole.
misinterpretation of what George Bush said to match what you would
have liked him to have said. So you set out to dig yourself in to
another hole.
As you've been told over and over again, there was not one single
reason for the invasion but multiple reasons. One of these was that
Saddam had used his military to invade Iran, invade Kuwait, invade
Saudi Arabia, and to lob conventional missiles at Israel. Chemical
weapons were used against Iran, but most of the fighting was done with
these same T72s that you have this fixation about.
reason for the invasion but multiple reasons. One of these was that
Saddam had used his military to invade Iran, invade Kuwait, invade
Saudi Arabia, and to lob conventional missiles at Israel. Chemical
weapons were used against Iran, but most of the fighting was done with
these same T72s that you have this fixation about.
Saddam maintained a large army, has used it to menace Kuwait since the
end of the first Gulf War, and has shot frequently at US and UK
aircraft patrolling the No Fly zones for the UN. He wasn't
particularly free to invade his neighbours again, but that was
entirely due to the presence of large numbers of US and Allied troops
in the region.
end of the first Gulf War, and has shot frequently at US and UK
aircraft patrolling the No Fly zones for the UN. He wasn't
particularly free to invade his neighbours again, but that was
entirely due to the presence of large numbers of US and Allied troops
in the region.
I didn't see countries like NZ or Canada volunteering to send brigade
size formations of troops or wings of strike aircraft to the region to
contain Iraq in to the indefinite future. Which is as good a reason as
any to allow those that carried the burden to resolve the matter after
12 years of trying to do so peacefully.
size formations of troops or wings of strike aircraft to the region to
contain Iraq in to the indefinite future. Which is as good a reason as
any to allow those that carried the burden to resolve the matter after
12 years of trying to do so peacefully.
Nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. Everything to do with
some of the most lethal weapons.
some of the most lethal weapons.
Are you so clueless that everything has to be spelled out for you?
David
No comments:
Post a Comment