Re: Re:
- From: t_dusquat@xxxxxxxxx (Tom DuSquat)
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:45:49 -0500
OUCH!! Hey there Bubbs. I missed Summerfest for the second year in a
row. Oh well, Ya know, I can send you a few dfferent varieties of brats
(Sheboygan-Usinger-Klements-etc) so you don't have to cruise for stories
like that anymore. How bout I set you up on a date with the "racing"
Klements brat some time.
From: 1@xxxxx (Bubba)
I thought TomD was found in some back alley at Summerfest a few years
back with an 18inch bratwurst crammed up his ass. He's still around?¿
<obaivasc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eXqtg.140086$771.28106@xxxxxxxxxxx
Tom DuSquat the longtime troll whoi has NEVER posted anything on-topic
SG related to rgs wrote:
obaivasc@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Gary Coward wrote:
Whenever you read some old quote or pseudo/fabricated-quote like this,
it
makes you think that the author had to go a long way back to find
anything
wrong with the conduct of the quotee, thus the quotee must be a pretty
good
guy and the quoter a bit of a tool.
In the case of a "fabricated" quote, yes.
In the case of a VALID quote, gary coward is of course WRONG, which is
not unusual.
THe fact that the author "had to go a
long way back" finding a specific quote
may be *because* (and usually is) that
particular quote is DIRECTLY RELEVENT to the situation at hand. Merely
becuase
the quotee was EMBARRASSED by his previous quote and had chosen not to
embarass himself with more recent quotes - though still
harboring the EXACT SAME feelings/conduct - does in no way render the
previous quote invalid - nor does it automatically make the quotee a
"pretty good guy" as coward claims. Or at least another honest,
intelligent
person would draw the same conclusion I have. Furthermore, old
quotes are still directly
applicable where the "quotee" has not since
shown/demonstrated/proven/retracted the
content/meaning/intent of that quote. In short, once proven a liar/fraud
(like gary coward for one example) the mere passage of time does not
change the fact that he *is* still a confirmed liar fraud, unless of
course PROVEN otherwise. The relevent quote therefore reveals the
character still today attributable to the "quotee"
Here's a good example that refutes coward's
belief...It's not a recent quote, but it accurately remains the status
quo TODAY regarding the character of the "quotee" depicted herein:
----------------------------------------------
From: Gary Collard (garycoll...@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: 2003-07-14 21:45:46 PST
"The rule is [stated by
collard, AFTER-the-fact] if I DON'T say in ADVANCE it's NOT
a real play, **IT COUNTS** - no ambiguity."
Well collard did *NOT* say in ADVANCE that his posted 03/04 NBA picks
were NOT plays (in fact he labelled them "plays"!!!) So AFTER coward ran
up a LOSING NBA record of 39-55-5, -20.98 units coward LIES about the
record! ... Brian points out the LIE...coward then utters this
completely contradictory BS to HIS own statement above (note the last
line):
"And it's all a non sequitur line of
reasoning anyway, since I **ONLY** post "my picks" in some
contests (PNGC, Hilton, RS, the late great ART). The rest of
the stuff I have POSTED
the last YEAR OR TWO has been tech
stuff, it *DOESN'T REFLECT ON ME* one way or the other!"
-
gary "the arrogant-FRAUD" collard
Ah.... but considering "all" quotes from just the two of ya's since the
two of ya's have been quotable (like forever I guess) whom do ya think
MOST people would stand up and say they'd like to be associated with?
Hmmmmm....either:
A/ the PROVEN & confirmed LIAR, FRAUD, BIGOT, who *RARELY* - repeat
for emphasis as
it is uniquely IMPORTANT for the relevence
pertaining to THIS newsgroup - *RARELY*
**initiates** his own threads with
ON-TOPIC, SIGNIFICANT, sports-gambling content as a
positive contribution to the group?...or
B/ the other guy, who is NOT a fraud/liar/bigot, in fact, if
anything he is a devoted ANTI- frauds/liars/bigots/trolls/morons -
thus incurring the mocking/flaming of those same frauds, liars,
bigots, trolls, morons -
and who, as the GOOGLE records can readily
verify, by both volume and significance, is the largest
positive contributor to this SPORTS-GAMBLING newsgroup by a VERY
WIDE MARGIN...
The CORRECT answer is clear to anyone with an IQ above a common garden
slug: the majority of the DISHONEST types, the TROLLS, the FRAUDS,
the LIARS, the BIGOTS, the MORONS, and the others who almost NEVER take
the time to *initiate* their own thread with SIGNIFICANT, positive ,
sports-gambling-related contributions, would most likely choose to be
associated with their OWN KIND, thus probably choosing "A/" above...
while the overwhelming majority of *HONEST* *INTELLIGENT* *NON-TROLLS*
*NON-FRAUDS* *NON-BIGOTS* who also appreciate those who not only
contribute massive volumes of information on this newsgroup (secondf to
nobody by a longshot) but who also take the time to **initiate** topics
in threads for info/discussion about SPORTS-GAMBLING on a
sports-gambling newsgroup (iow, GOOD people) would certainly choose "B/"
Now wouldn't that be a true testament to validity of a particular
quotee?
Answered.
FRESH DONUTS!!
Anything "SPORTS-GAMBLING related" from you this month or just more of
the same troll-crap as always?
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Temple Owls?
- Next by Date: Re:
- Previous by thread: RGS Baseball Contest Rules -- Periodic Repost
- Next by thread: Liriano?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
