Re: Vexatious Litigant

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:46:26 +0000, turtill@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:23:08 +0000, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

No, just stating absolute, simple, FACT.

In what weird way can you think I could possibly be "wriggling" there?
What conceivable reason could there be for me to do so?

Because you are wrong and are looking silly of course.

That is entirely you opinion.

I am equally entitled to mine.

You have not
missed an opportunity to post against me

Apart from the hundreds of times you post most months without a
response from me.

and as you usually posted
temperately I took that as being a sign of a genuine belief rather
than a sign of hostility.

I usually (but by no means always) post temperately. And have posted
perfectly temperately in this tread.

This time you have finally made yourself
clear by posting as expert testimony a whole load of crap.


Rubbish.

I have posted my opinion.

No "expert testimony". The fact you claim to think it crap is just the
opinion you are posting



I couldn't give a flying copulation if you believe me or not.


So why bother answering.

Because it is about time you heard a few home truths.


So why bother answering?

You certainly didn't give out any "home truths".


That is not a reasonable reason, and I believe it is one you use as a
smokescreen.

Explain how that can be a smoke screen marvo.


You put it up as an apparent reason, in order to mask the real reason,
which is that you (fro whatever reason) don't want people to see your
old posts.

Your losing it now.

No, just answering your question about how it could be a smokescreen.

I suppose responding to this type of post by you at all could be
described as "losing it".

You are the one who made the claims so stand them up or back off.


No.

That is my opinion, and I am fully entitled to my opinion.

And as for the above, you asked how it could be a smokescreen. I gave
an answer. No "claims" involved, just a clear answer to your question.

I had previously;claimed that I thought it was a smokescreen, and I
still think that.


I only delete posts on google and lately I haven't
even bothered doing that. How is that going to stop people seeing my
posts on other archives or even on their own newsreaders.

It wouldn't.

I assumed it was when you realised that, plus realised the size of
task you would have getting rid of them on google, that you stopped.

Here we go the classic heney get out. You are not going to admit you
were completely wrong but instead claim you 'assumed'. You assumed
wrongly and you know it

I not only don't "know" I am wrong, I am fairly sure I am right.

so stop arguing total bollocks and just say
you got it wrong from the moment you started posting in this thread.


You have said NOTHING which makes me think I might have been wrong.


I take it
you do know there are other archives as well as google.

I knew that long before you appeared to.

Then why did you claim I was removing my posts so that people couldn't
see them. I suppose that was just another of your infamous
assumptions.


It was what I believed, and still do.

It is by far and away the most common reason why people would remove
their posts, regardless of the existence of other archives.



Haven't you
got that far in your learning curve yet. Didn't you realise that
people can save posts themselves or even just keep them on their
newsreaders? I take it you do have a newsreader and you know where to
find the old posts? Now I have destroyed your claim that I do not
archive my posts on google because I don't want people to be able to
see them

You haven't come within a light year of making a slight dent in the
claim, never mind "destroying" it.

I have destroyed your argument completely and you know it

NO I don't.

You have made some statements about your motivation.

Even if those statements are true, it doesn't completely destroy my
arguments. And I don't believe they are true.

Nor, I suspect, would most people who have seen your posting history
over the years.

and are now
trying to say you made the wrong assumption.

No I'm not.

The only "wrong" assumption I am admitting to was the one where I
assumed you meant what you said in one post.

Now you get that. The
wrong assumption about me but instead of saying 'well I got that
wrong' and I apologise for mouthing off about me you are now trying to
justify yourself.


You claim it is a wrong assumption.

I don't believe you.



You have apparently given up now, but there was a significant period
when you seemed determined to remove any traces of what you had
posted, until you realised that was impossible.

I have only ever removed posts I have made from google. That is what I
said to start with and now you are admitting that but now you also try
to say it was because I didn't know how to remove posts from other
archives! How do you think I got posts about me removed from other
archives Marvo?

The fact you *now* know it is impossible does not mean that wasn't the
reason at the time.

What the feck are you trying to allege now? Are you really trying to
say I cannot have my own posts removed from google?

Where on earth do you get *that* idea from?

I am only saying that you now know it is impossible to remove all
traces of postings you have made.

Which is because even when you get them removed from Google, they will
still be in other archives, and will also appear in responses by other
people.

What a wriggle
that is to try and change the subject of the thread away from your
original load of crap.


You are the one (as usual) wriggling and twisting.

Trying to claim I am saying all sorts of things that I'm not.


I suppose you will now do a classic heny wriggle and change
your claims or allege tiredness had forced you into making
unsubstantiated claims which can be seen as absolute nonsense.

No.

Of course they were unsubstantiated, because they were (as clearly
stated), my *opinion*.

So that makes it ok for you to be wrong then does it. It was only your
wrongly assumed opinion!

And my opinion is still the same.

Yes it is still wrong and you cannot admit it.


It is my opinion.

I have seen nothing to make me change it.


It was
also useful to cancel my posts as soon as I had made them to stop drek
and anthony bournes following me around usenet.

If you think that, then you just show a serious lack of knowledge of
usenet.

What is it you think is wrong? Me being followed around usenet or me
stopping drek and bournes following me?


Neither.

If you think that you "canceling" your posts will have any such
effect, then you are sadly ill-informed.

Boy you really are running on empty aren't you. Of course drek and
bournes cannot follow me by looking me up on google if my posts are
not showing. You appear to be very sadly ill-informed, not me.


Next time, try posting what you *mean*.

Oh it is my fault you got it all wrong then

Yes.

is it because you didn't
understand what you were talking about. It was my fault for not
explaining to you that you were reading my post wrongly. Heck do you
want a private e-mail explaining my posts in future.


No, I would just like you to say what you actually mean.


I thought you meant what you said, namely that you wanted to stop tem
following you around usenet.

Yes you know that is what I wanted to do and I have told you that a
few times now and it worked too.


I didn't know what you wanted to do.

I thought you actually wanted to prevent them from following you
around usenet.

There was nothing in your post, or any other I had seen prior to that,
which indicated you only wanted to stop them using google to follow
you.

Not that you only wanted to stop them doing it by the use of Google.

That is the way it is done Marvo. Geddit?

No.

You now appear to have gone back to the previous claim, that taking
your posts out of google would stop them from following you.

It may have done in that case, but if so, that was only because they
couldn't be bothered (or didn't know any better).


Canceling posts has very little effect, because most servers do not
honour cancel messages.

I have already explained to you many times I only cancel my posts on
google

No you haven't.

Yes I have many times in this thread

Sorry, my bad.

I made the mistake of assuming a reasonable interpretation of the
words.

I didn't realise you meant *after* I made the post you were responding
to with that claim.

OK, I accept you have stated that several times in this tread.


but you wanted to prove I done it
elsewhere and after 24hrs you cannot so instead you are trying to
change the thread around.


Huh?

I have not made the slightest effort to "prove" anything.

Nor do I have the slightest desire to do so.

Everything I have stated, apart from the fact that you used top post
as smicker, and that you usually use x-no-archive, is pure opinion.

As such, it is not open to proof, so why would I want to "prove"
anything.

I have never, BTW, suggested that you have ever canceled any of your
posts anywhere other than google./

I have only suggested that you also use x-no-archive.

And when you talk of canceling posts, the normal sense in usenet is
that you are issuing usenet cancels for the posts.

No it isn't.

You are wrong. That is fact.

When I cancel a post off google it is canceled.

No it isn't. If it were canceled, then it would no longer be available
on usenet.

When you get it removed from Google, it is removed from google. It is
not canceled.


Getting posts removed from google is a very different thing.

No it isn't. It cancels the post off google. Exactly the thing I said
I done but you wouldn't have it because in your majestic opinion you
decided to assume something wrongly and instead of admitting that you
want to make out I said something totally different to what I did say
and that excuses you being wrong.


I only assumed that the words were being used in the sense they are
normally being used on usenet.

I was wrong.

and lately I haven't even bothered to do that. Why can you not
understand that simple statement.

What on earth gives you the slightest idea that I may have any
difficulty in understanding that.

Quite simple really after all the wrong assumptions you have already
admitted to. You may well have assumed I was saying I never even post.


So nothing but a pure guess then.

I
only cancel my posts on google and these days I have not even bothered
to do that. Is that clear enough for you now? Now you have all night
to trawl around and find me saying differently or try to obfuscate in
your usual style.

Are you trying to say that you have never posted with X-No-Archive?

Where have I said that?

I am asking if you are claiming that.

Since that is where this whole thread started.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A professor is one who talks in someone else's sleep.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Taking the pledge
    ... I have only tried it on my own posts, ... I see no reason it shouldn't work. ... the subject and generate a new cancel msg and send it out. ... Mike Alexander ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: RAID 1
    ... >> repeated context that also clutters the archives, ... I suppose I should have given up on usenet ... he didn't have google to help sift through the cruft and probably ... It shows parts of your 100 most recent posts with links to the full text ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: JSH: Measuring post impact
    ... but mostly I use Google. ... noticed their original postings. ... Today my posts do probably get read by thousands of people ... Do some searches on primes and probability now, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: *** Post of the Month (POTM) for November 2006: Vote Now! ***
    ... The main reason, I bet, is the recent flap over Google Groups. ... their posts were successful) and votes may have been lost. ... It seems you're calling for votes once/week to clear out the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ** Respectful Armed Citizen Kills State Trooper <= more American Gun MADNESS ! **
    ... Google is only as smart as how you use it. ... Not my fault that you haven't read my posts that addressed just that. ... You may like to claim that is the reason, but the reality is far different. ... It would only be about taxes if the Davidians had owed any taxes. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)