Re: Vexatious Litigant

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 12:48:53 +0000, turtill@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 02:41:29 +0000, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

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.

Yes but you post as if you are posting fact when all it's only 'your
opinion' and often wrong.

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.

Hell you even respond to posts about 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.

Except until this post you have consistently failed to say you are
only posting 'your opinion'.

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


Rubbish.

I have posted my opinion.

Yes apparently your rubbish opinion.

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

You hold yourself out to be expert until challenged and then you hide
behind weasle words which turned out to be crap. You should look at
your opening gambit in this thread where you seemed to be claiming to
be posting fact.

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".

Oh yes I have marvo. It is now obvious to all who post here that your
words of wisdom are no more than your opinion.

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.

Yes that is all it ever has been marvo. Just your opinion, not factual
at all.

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.

You didn't use the magic words before that you 'thought' something
marvo. You stated it as fact.

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.

Only 'fairly sure' now. Maybe you should have made that clear
originally.

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.

Apparently your 'thinking' is worthless opinion anyhow.

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.

Yes it was you 'opinion' and just a load of bollocks wasn't it and it
is still only your opinion even now. Pity you didn't say that at the
time.

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

In your opinion I suppose. I have already told you while I done it and
still you are hawking your opinion as being fact even after being
corrected. I always announced any change of 'handle' I used.

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.

But that is all just your opinion isn't it and it has been shown your
opinion isn't worth a rats turd.

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.

I meant what I said. You read it wrongly and blamed me for your lack
of comprehension.

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.

It might have been helpful if you had explained it was merely your
belief you were posting and not some fact available only to marvo.

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?

From your statement saying I now know it is impossible to remove
posts. I know nothing of the sort as I do have posts removed from
other archives or at least I have done.

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

Is this some magic descovery you havde just made marvo. I reckon most
of the folks on usenet know that. I suppose you just threw that little
bit in for padding as it is useless information as far as this thread
is concerned.

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.

Yes I have already made that clear.

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.

Not at all. I am showing that what you posted as fact is merely 'your
opinion'.

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.

Probably not as your head is so far up your own rectum you can see
nothing but heney all around you.

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.

Really. My fault for your now admitted wrong. I said you got it wrong
and you reply 'yes' just a few lines after saying it was your opinion
and you see no reason to change it. Even after you admit it was wrong.

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.

Try reading my posts and not putting you own interpretation upon them
then as your opinion is proving to not be up to scratch.

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.

Then try reading the post before jumping into one of your 'opinions'.

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).

So now it is the troll fault eh?

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.

No you used one of your faulty opinions again.

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.

That is pretty big of you after many attempt to say differently marvo.
Change of opinion by any chance?

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.

Suggested! Opinion! Pure opinion. Used to top post! What a load of
bollocks.

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.

No again you are confusing that opinion of yours with fact. Nowhere
have I claimed to have sent a cancel message or is that just another
opinion of what I have posted rather than a fact. I get it, an opinion
fact that is only your opinion of a 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.

Try reading for comprehension. It is canceled off google.

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

That is exactly what I said.

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.

You only assumed eh. So you were not posting facts at all but above
you have said you will not change your assumption or opinion that you
posted as fact.

I was wrong.

You have finally got there then even after stating in the post I am
replying to that it is your opinion and you see no reason to change
it. How about the fact you have just said it 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.

That does seem to be the substance of all your posts so I thought you
might be able to grasp that one.

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.

No you are not. You are trying to suggest I have claimed not to post
X-No-Archive.

Since that is where this whole thread started.

You better go back to the start of the thread then and charge the OP
with misleading you then arsehole.
pete

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cannot Access Newsgroups
    ... Stop using the clunky/unreliable/crap web interface to access these ... Also - when you want to search for archived posts - use Google ... I have a strong opinion about the quality of the web interface ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Rudeney already voted.
    ... No one doubts your sincerity but therein lies the reason that many people take issue with you: ... There are certain things that you have to understand about RADP or any other newsgroup. ... Not every opinion is ripe for an argument. ... We don't award prizes to the one who posts more than any one else in a month. ...
    (rec.arts.disney.parks)
  • Re: Vexatious Litigant
    ... That is entirely you opinion. ... Yes but you post as if you are posting fact when all it's only 'your ... Hell you even respond to posts about me. ... I have already explained to you many times I only cancel my posts on ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: possible to connect 2 graphs?
    ... > the past to the recommendations he was given about his posts and didn't ... "The March Hare" doesn't really lend itself to being ... >> opinion doesn't carry any more weight than anyone else's. ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.directx.video)
  • Re: Jill Short......Come On Down
    ... cannot have a stronger opinion] too much. ... action, would destroy a livelihood. ... original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author ... unprofessional manner to people on this ng....and if the posts were so ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)