Re: The responsibility dodge that keep coming back

In article <5f3a7c1e-5671-4d75-a9a1-2e923ad36f55@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve Carroll <fretwizz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 16, 6:21 pm, Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<a8e8b575-9389-4de6-a3b9-83fb8ff44...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,



 -hh <recscuba_goo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Snit <use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"-hh" <recscuba_goo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated:
Snit wrote:

The above is in error... looking at the whole sentence that is not
what
your meaning was... my apologies.

Gosh, imagine that.

And yes, your other post was also in error too.

That makes you "Zero for two" (at least) in less than 15 minutes.

 Dude... I made a mistake and apologized... but you *still* said:

    the PDFs are still represent a forgery

Which they certainly do not!  

See Tim, this is what I meant about "par for the course", and why
Michael doesn't deserve the
time of day:  by the above, he just undid his own retraction, which
restored one of his mistakes.

And by his attempts to ambitiously get back onto his personal axe to
grind, he's once again dodged taking responsibility for his errors,
despite ample opportunity to be honest.  Which unfortunately also
means that by pointing this one yet again, we can all "Bet the Ranch"
that Glasser will respond to claim innocence and some flavor of
"victim-itis", promulgating more of his dishonest view of reality, in
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...

Because he can't simply not respond.

It is indeed 'par for the course'. Poor michael still can't figure out that
those of us that accused him, and correctly so, of forging a pdf document,
were
talking about the document from several years ago, knowing full well that
once a
person has been proved to forge pdf file, it wasn't worth wasting our time
to
look at new file that same person might post. Especially when he seems to
be  
mainly keeping his web site just to gather info on the visitors, as he has
shown
on several occasions.

Exactly... and what I wrote in this thread proves I was talking about
the PDF that involved Steve Mackay and Sandman.

that's also the pdf file I've been talking about when I've stated, as a FACT,
that michael glasser has forged a pdf file. of course michael is to stupid to
understand that simple fact and continues to run from reality. so typical of him.

--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PDF Attatchments Wont Open
    ... Michael, I found the culprit. ... I thought Net Nanny was a Web Site filter only?? ... saved emailed PDF file in notepad. ... Are the problem PDF files all coming from the same person? ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)
  • Re: pdf generators
    ... Michael A. Terrell wrote: ... Here is a sample PDF file from one ... of my websites: http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/Sams-Index.pdf ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: The responsibility dodge that keep coming back
    ... that's also the pdf file I've been talking about when I've stated, as a FACT, ... that michael glasser has forged a pdf file. ... How is Steve Mackay involved with Sandman lying about his CSS? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: needed: HP 4261A LCR meter manual
    ... Michael A. Terrell wrote: ... can pay $$ or trade manual. ... The fifth item down is a 11.53 MB PDF file. ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Re: The responsibility dodge that keep coming back
    ... Michael doesn't deserve the ... those of us that accused him, and correctly so, of forging a pdf document, were ... person has been proved to forge pdf file, it wasn't worth wasting our time to ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)