Re: Hackers Hit A New Low

"Sandman" <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
mr-CC8203.22385831032008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/31/08 2:38 PM:

In article <C41687B2.B1551%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA
have
ever sunk so low...

I won't take your word for that, though.

If you will not take my word then why even ask?

I never asked you about who "ever sunk so low".

Nor do you need to - you know.

Another unsupported claim.

The people who have you cowed - Wally being one of them. Notice how you
refuse to even say that {0} is *not* a subset of the integers 1 through
10... you are so cowed by Wally and those he co-trolls with that you simply
will not state such an obvious fact for fear of disagreeing with Wally's BS.

And you know who sides with those people, hence the reason you absolutely
refuse to say such simple things as *of course* {0} is not in a subset of
integers 1 through 10... and of course Wally was flat our wrong about even
basic set theory. You won't say that because he often aligns himself with
those who "sink so low" and you are not willing to oppose that group.

In fact you run whenever this topic is brought up.

You mean I don't take part in your obsession with incest, subsets and
Wally?

I mean what I said, not your absurd lies, Sandman.

The very mention of it is beyond your ability to quote - that is how much
they have you cowed. Then you pretend you do not know why they target me and
not you. That is dishonest of you, Sandman.

I don't know why so many target you and none target me. Especially
when you claim I'm such a bad person. Logically, bad people should be
targeted a lot more than good people.

What makes you think those who "target" people target "bad" people more?
Seems they would go after the innocent.

In the case of the recent debate with Wally you showed why the "bad people"
do not target you: you are so cowed by the least offensive of their members
as to not be willing to state the fact that {0} is *not* a subset of the
integers 1 through 10 simply because it is contrary to what that *one* "bad"
person said.

<snip more on Sandman's quote scavenging powers! Super Sandman the
Scavanger!>

Nope: it is when you took the word "right:", with the colon, out of context.
Easy to show if you want me to.

You're talking about something Wally has said.

Ah, it was Wally who did that bit of dishonest snipping... you merely jumped
in to support his lie and repeatedly insisted his claims were not
"ignorant", even though they clearly were.

<snip rest of Snits Wallyobsession>

What you snipped:
-----
But you are afraid to admit that Wally is flat out wrong -
Wally and the "perpetrators" of CSMA often side together
(even if Wally does not join them in their most despicable
actions). For you to go against Wally (especially as he
spews lies about me and as I point out his ignorance) would
be to risk the wrath of the very people you seem so proud do
not "dislike" you. Of course they do not speak poorly of you
or anyone else they have cowed. Notice how many times you
snipped and ran - scared as a bunny - when I asked you about
Wally's ignorant claims.
-----

Notice how you repeatedly run from such information. You prove me right
about you over and over and over and over.

That is, if you aimed to prove that I don't care about your obsessions.

Oh, I am not obsessed with you being cowed - I am just amused by how much
you run from the topic. Come on, Sandman: just try to admit to the fact
that, contrary to Wally's claims, {0} is *not* a subset of the integers 1
through 10.

You can't: you simply are too cowed by he and the "bad people" you do not
want to speak poorly of you.


--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.

.

Quantcast