Scott lies again!

On Friday, March 15, 2002 7:17:45 AM UTC-7, Richard Henry wrote:
"Maverick" ] wrote in message
...
Yo Scootaboob!! This just came in over the transom. Gotcha again you lying
bitch!!

In this here message, you told me you didn't report Ant for using drugs
because you weren't "a licensed counselor at the time" (as in when you
were
traveling with her and supposedly saw her do so -- which I don't believe
for one minute).


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40hotmail.com

--------------------
From: Scott Abraham
Newsgroups: rec.skiing.alpine,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.hackers.mal icious
Subject: Scott Abraham pulls yet another massive PKB double
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:54:02 -0800
Message-ID:

file://SNIP//

So
were you acting in your official capacity as a licensed alcohol and drug
counselor for the state of Washington?

Clue time, asshole. I wasn't a licensed counselor at the time. Nor am I
required to narc on dope fiends.

file://SNIP//

--------------------

Now in this message, which you posted YEARS before you met and traveled
with poor little Anty, you claim just the opposite:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40halcyon.com

--------------------
From: Scott Abraham
Subject: So, Two Buddha plays host to a TWIT?
Date: 1996/03/21
Message-ID:
newsgroups: rec.skiing.alpine

file://SNIP//

I have posted on several occasions that I am a graduate student
in psychology at the MA program at Antioch University in Seattle.
I am a licensed addictions counselor in the state of Washington,
and I have a bachelor's degree in psychology.

file://SNIP//

--------------------

So were you lying then or are you lying now? Axelly, I think you just lie
all the time. (And people really otter read all of that 2nd message of
yours. It's quite precious.)

Oh, BMDF liar.

----====++ MAVERICK ++====----
+ Free spaying and neutering +
+ No phone, no pool, no pets +
+ Endorsed by R. A. Heinlein +
----====~~~~~~~~~~~~~~====----

"Never cry over split milk. It could've been whiskey." ~"Pappy" Maverick

For a good time, visit: news://news.annexcafe.com/annexcafe.men.mensbbs


Actually, they should read the whole thread.

Yes. Very funny indeed.

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:30:34 PM UTC-7, pigo wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2002 7:17:45 AM UTC-7, Richard Henry wrote:

Actually, they should read the whole thread.

Yes. Very funny indeed.

Since the topic is "lying" -

Suppose in some limited environment, which may or may not be an internet newsgroup, Poster A knows some facts about topics X and Y. Further, suppose that Poster A observes that Poster B has made statements about topics X and Y that Poster A knows to be false, and that Poster C makes statements about topics X and Y that Poster A knows to be true.

If another topic Z arises that Poster A knows nothing about except that he observes that the details of Topic Z posted by Posters B and C are in contradiction, which of the two Posters should Poster A believe?

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:57:18 PM UTC-6, Richard Henry wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:30:34 PM UTC-7, pigo wrote:

On Friday, March 15, 2002 7:17:45 AM UTC-7, Richard Henry wrote:



Actually, they should read the whole thread.



Yes. Very funny indeed.



Since the topic is "lying" -



Suppose in some limited environment, which may or may not be an internet newsgroup, Poster A knows some facts about topics X and Y. Further, suppose that Poster A observes that Poster B has made statements about topics X and Y that Poster A knows to be false, and that Poster C makes statements about topics X and Y that Poster A knows to be true.

If another topic Z arises that Poster A knows nothing about except that he observes that the details of Topic Z posted by Posters B and C are in contradiction, which of the two Posters should Poster A believe?

Otherwise known as the boy that cried wolf.