Taichiskiing

In article
,
twobuddha wrote:

PS Can I assume that if you two CAN'T back up ANY your wild accusations,
you'll realize you were wrong and apologize too?-

Having fun, psychopath? What audience are you playing to? Who do you
hope to impress with your mastery of deception?
The hamsters?

The hamsters?

On May 26, 8:59*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

Because they are proven facts, so they are true.

Great! *How did you prove it? *Where is the proof? You and Scott
agreeing doesn't constitute proof, you know.

It actually does the exact opposite.

On May 26, 8:39*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

Sure, I'd simply direct the reader to your writing in this post and ask
them if it seems like the work of a healthy, adjusted person.

That gives me an idea. I can see the drivel flying off the screen. So
there has to be a flurry of rediculousness going on. I wonder if it is
not worth studying? Alan didn't have any luck getting trunky to meet
him at a psychiatrist's office. Maybe we can bring the office to him?
I'm pretty sure toecheese is just mental. To invent your own use for
words and sentence structure is just weird. And then to hold the
hundreds of millions that use English in contempt for not using your
"new" language is just retarded. So toecheese = lost cause.

But trunky is a different story. I don't need to see everything. We
are all familiar with the repetitiveness and homoerotic fantasies. But
surely someone here must have colleagues or fellow students or
something of that nature that would find this level of absurdity
fasinating?

I think that we all agree here that it's the attention he craves. Even
though it's negative. And there's no doubt that this would be negative
to him, BUT WOW, how negative! And how much attention. He could have
entire college programs, classrooms and _real_ mental health
professionals talking about him? After all that one guy that got duped
by the recovered memory angle from this professional victim got
something going. Maybe something along the same lines only truthful?

I know a few people that contribute here that travel in those circles.
Why not talk it up? Couldn't hurt.

On May 26, 10:25*pm, twobuddha wrote:
On May 26, 8:14*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:





In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 26, 7:59*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:
In article
,

*taichiskiing wrote:
So why do call me names like "liar" and say there's "no redemption for
my soul"?

Dave

Because they are proven facts, so they are true.

Great! *How did you prove it? *Where is the proof? You and Scott
agreeing doesn't constitute proof, you know.

No, me catching you lying your ass off hundreds of times constitutes
proof, Pervert Dave. *Which I have been delighted to do and will
continue to do. *You lie like you breathe. *Just the statement "Where
is the proof" is an outright lie.

How is asking for proof of your crazy accusations "a lie?" *Regardless...

A. *Proved you a liar hundreds of times. *To ignore that reality and
demand more proof is therefore another lie.

Could you point one out? Because no one here has actually seen you do
that yet. I know, I'm asking too much from you. You can't really do
it, only claim that you did it with absolutly no proof.

B. *As everyone is well aware that my exposure of you as a
pathological liar is soundly based in reality, to use the word "crazy"
to characterize that reality is another lie.
Regardless, you blithering idiot.

Yes, everyone knows you are a pathological liar and a blithering
idiot.

Fantastic! *We can FINALLY put this business of you and taichiskiing's
name calling to bed.

Calling you a psychopathic pathological liar is not name calling.
Minimizing the truth is another lie. *It is reality, an accurate
assessment of your character and behavior.

*You just post a couple examples of me lying, *
along with your proof that I'm lying, and I'll apologize, and we can all
move on.

I have caught you in hundreds of examples of you lying, and you have
never apologized or retracted a single lie. *To say you would is
another lie.
You're one of the most accomplished liars I have ever observed.
Tell you what. *How about you spew some of your **** in person, and
afterwards, we can all move on.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA

Yet you can't point out even one.

Dave

PS Can I assume that if you two CAN'T back up ANY your wild accusations,
you'll realize you were wrong and apologize too?-

Having fun, psychopath? *What audience are you playing to? *Who do you
hope to impress with your mastery of deception?
The hamsters?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 26, 2:53*pm, twobuddha wrote:
On May 26, 12:25*pm, Scottum wrote:





On May 26, 8:47*am, twobuddha wrote:

On May 26, 7:31*am, pigo wrote:

On May 25, 1:44*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

Those no rule that says you can't make nutty claims, but for it to be
valid or believable, you need to back it up with more than circular
reasoning. *You might want to appear silly and nonsensical. *That is
certainly your prerogative.

And the one thing he appears successful at so far.

This from Brain Fried Bob Thompson, who just whined that I am an
extremely violent man likely to go postal and harm innocents?
The mind boggles.

An hourly occurrence for you, I'm sure.

As I was saying?



What about your post about taking a gun to temple? *

Sure did. *Do you want to mention the clear death threats, people
threatening to shoot me, people claiming to have done drive by's?
Here is a clue. *Somebody threatens to kill me, I take precautions. *I
am more than capable of defending myself from the agression of rsa
terrorists, as you well know. *Because if you didn't believe I could
take you easier than stealing candy from a baby, you would have shown
up at Copper.
Amazing how you freaks never mention your own death threats, then
start whining to the cops when I tell you to bring it on, you pathetic
pussy.

What death threats? When have I ever threatened violence against
you? Would you mind providing some backup to these wild acusations?
I didn't think so.

That sounds like a
violent man to me.

I most certainly can be violent with people who threaten violence.
Got a problem with that? *Of course you do. *Stalking freaks always
get all whiny when they think they might get held accountable. *But to
equate going postal on innocents with being able and willing to kick
the **** out of internet bullies who threaten my life?

Examples please?

Sounds like YOU are going postal, pppppppuuuuuuusssssssyyyyyy. *Just
like your buddy Brain Fried Bob.
I've got a lot of training and a lot of experience with violence. *I
know how to control myself in dangerous situations.
It is insane pppppuuussssiiiieeeesssss like you and Brain Fried who
are likely to go postal, idiot.

It sounds like you are the one making the threats here.

*And what about your brothers Backlash post? *I
sure sounds like he agreed that you were a violent man.

It sure sounds like he lied his ass off the same way you are lying
your ass off.
One thing for su YOU aren't a violent man. *Obviously. *Unless we
are talking about kids, women, small animals, etc.
Here is a clue, dumb****. *You assholes threatened me, I told you what
I would do if you tried to harm me and I challenged you to try to make
good on your threats.

What threats? Examples please?

I have never seen a one of you dickless freaks in eleven years.
Which is exactly what I want. *Because if I ever see you, in any
circumstances, you will discover if I am capable of violence.

Which is why you were too much of a pussy to show up at Copper.

Why not back up your bull**** and show up?
Ooooooops, forgot. *You've already proven you believe me, and already
proven you have no manhood.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 26, 2:59*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*twobuddha wrote:
On May 26, 12:25*pm, Scottum wrote:
On May 26, 8:47*am, twobuddha wrote:

On May 26, 7:31*am, pigo wrote:

On May 25, 1:44*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

Those no rule that says you can't make nutty claims, but for it to be
valid or believable, you need to back it up with more than circular
reasoning. *You might want to appear silly and nonsensical. *That is
certainly your prerogative.

And the one thing he appears successful at so far.

This from Brain Fried Bob Thompson, who just whined that I am an
extremely violent man likely to go postal and harm innocents?
The mind boggles.

An hourly occurrence for you, I'm sure.

As I was saying?

What about your post about taking a gun to temple? *

Sure did. *Do you want to mention the clear death threats, people
threatening to shoot me, people claiming to have done drive by's?

I'd love for you to provide references to them, yes.

But you never will, will you?

Here is a clue. *Somebody threatens to kill me, I take precautions. *I
am more than capable of defending myself from the agression of rsa
terrorists, as you well know. *Because if you didn't believe I could
take you easier than stealing candy from a baby, you would have shown
up at Copper.

LOL

Amazing how you freaks never mention your own death threats, then
start whining to the cops when I tell you to bring it on, you pathetic
pussy.

What death threats, Scottie? I've never seen one.

The only threat I've seen is you threatening me.

That's not the only threat. He's also threatened me, pigo, Richard,
Ted, Dave, Ant, Hobbs and Yabahoobs and I'm sure there are others I've
forgotten.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 26, 7:59 pm, Dave Cartman wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
So why do call me names like "liar" and say there's "no redemption for
my soul"?

Dave

Because they are proven facts, so they are true.

Great! How did you prove it? Where is the proof? You and Scott
agreeing doesn't constitute proof, you know.

Actually, your posts were the proofs, as shown in your perpetuated
shameless denial. On the other hand, as I said earlier, there's no
proof possible for a perpetuated shameless liar. And yes, as you
always have to lie to deny, so there's no redemption for your soul.

If you really want to know where you have lied, reread my quotes that
you have snapped. Then again, you were proven having no guts to face
your own dismal reality, not sure what would that/reread my quotes do
any good for you, you simply slip into shameless denial, then you
would never learn the truth.

On May 26, 8:05 pm, Dave Cartman wrote:
In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:
On May 26, 3:21 pm, Dave Cartman wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
In the definition of the word "fish." A trout is a fish. A opossum is
not.

This example of "fish" is even worst, how we do know that "fish" means
fish by looking at "physical expression," i.e. the spelling, of the
word?

Back to dictionaries, eh? No, it won't work, as all the words in that
dictionary are circularly defined. Nevertheless, the meaning of
pictograph words terminates at object they depicted.

I don't think you understand what written language is and how it works.
Both systems are symbolic.

And I don't think you know what you are talking about.

For example, according to Google, this is the Chinese character for
"fish."

http://chineseculture.about.com/libr...np/nc_fish.htm

(and here is a video of a young lady writing "fish" in Chinese. I like
it because even SHE looks impatient with you.)

http://www.ehow.com/video_4403834_wr...e-symbols.html

It looks no more like a fish than the English word for fish does. Is
the symbol she drew a trout or a bass?

Dave

Not because you can search the internet then you would know anything
about how Chinese characters are constructed and where the meaning of
the word lies. Lucky you, the following web page even has a picture
for you to see how construction/writing of those characters evolve,
http://wenhua.eco.gov.cn/3/1/2/2/2009/0703/134690.html

Of course you cannot read Chinese, so don't worry about them; just
look the graph which depicted how writing of those characters were
evolved. From the left to the right, left column is the oldest/
pictograph character, and the right column is the modern writing; the
first line is "fish," the second line is "horse," and the third line
is "bamboo scroll."

They are symbols but not a symbol like spelling language. So, if you
say they all are just symbols, then you don't know what you are
talking about, hence little knowledge. Q.E.D.

They are just symbols. Just like a word or a map is symbolic
representation. And your written Chinese "fish" looks no more like a
real fish than does the written English word "fish."

Yup, when you put a circle and a square together and say they are the
same as they are both symbols, then you know neither on what they
represent; that's to say your little knowledge has no ideas even how
English is constructed when you think that a language is just bunch
symbols.

On May 27, 6:51 am, pigo wrote:
On May 26, 8:59 pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

Because they are proven facts, so they are true.

Great! How did you prove it? Where is the proof? You and Scott
agreeing doesn't constitute proof, you know.

It actually does the exact opposite.

And you think your "shameless denials and recycled lies" go anywhere?

On May 27, 7:11*am, pigo wrote:
On May 26, 8:39*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

Sure, I'd simply direct the reader to your writing in this post and ask
them if it seems like the work of a healthy, adjusted person.

That gives me an idea. I can see the drivel flying off the screen. So
there has to be a flurry of rediculousness going on. I wonder if it is
not worth studying? Alan didn't have any luck getting trunky to meet
him at a psychiatrist's office. Maybe we can bring the office to him?
I'm pretty sure toecheese is just mental. To invent your own use for
words and sentence structure is just weird. And then to hold the
hundreds of millions that use English in contempt for not using your
"new" language is just retarded. So toecheese = lost cause.

But trunky is a different story. I don't need to see everything. We
are all familiar with the repetitiveness and homoerotic fantasies. But
surely someone here must have colleagues or fellow students or
something of that nature that would find this level of absurdity
fasinating?

I think that we all agree here that it's the attention he craves. Even
though it's negative. And there's no doubt that this would be negative
to him, BUT WOW, how negative! And how much attention. He could have
entire college programs, classrooms and _real_ mental health
professionals talking about him? After all that one guy that got duped
by the recovered memory angle from this professional victim got
something going. Maybe something along the same lines only truthful?

I know a few people that contribute here that travel in those circles.
Why not talk it up? Couldn't hurt.

I would put scott in the lost-cause ward as well.

I even feel guilty sometimes about enabling his rants.

sure I do