Taichiskiing

Dave Cartman wrote:
A psychopathic pathological
liar playing pathologically psychopathic
games?
You know what is really hilarious?

The number of things wrong with the preceding sentence?

I just question the logic of twisting the nipples of two village idiots,
it like sticking it out the window on a warm breezy day.

On May 23, 1:19 pm, Richard Henry wrote:

I would nominate itchy for a KOTM award, but I'm not sure the voters
would understand him enough to appreciate his true kookiness.

Good, I must have done something extraordinary to expose you shameless
netkooks' kookiness, you shameless netkooks.

On May 23, 5:21 pm, Dave Cartman wrote:
In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:
I think this would be a much more meaningful discussion if you would
just tell me what you think I'm lying about. Can you?

I did, and you snapped it to save your embarrassments, (wow, you even
feel embarrassed? You may have some hope... Nah, just your shameless
"denials and recycled lies" continue, hopeless!). Here's the partial
quote that you have snapped:

" Yes there is the Google archive. Bert tries this too, to similar
effect. Make an accusation, fail to provide evidence to back it up and
then demand that the other person find evidence that his accusation is
*not* valid. Nice try. You called me a liar and have thus far been
unable to provide any evidence of me lying. It really is time to
apologize.

'Quote it, you pathetic liar'; it is your post you should know where
it is. Bringing Bert in to confuse the issue doesn't really work, in
fact, it only shows the opposite affect that it is you who "Make an
accusation (that I lie about your lying), fail to provide evidence to
back it up (you claim you first come to my post is for helping my
English, yet you cannot produce a quote from you OWN post to indicate
where you have said that) and then demand that the other person find
evidence that his accusation is *not* valid" (of course, you cannot
quote it, because it was never there) and then try to wiggle out of
your accusation (you lie)."

I still don't see what you think I'm "recycling lies" about.

Here, fill in the blanks:

Dave lied about _______________ And I say that because he said
______________ when in fact the truth is ____________________ as I
explain here _______________________.

Filling the blanks? Sounds like a junior high mid-term, is that the
only way you can comprehend the statements? Yup, a juvenile's little
knowledge it is. And there are not enough spaces to fill in all your
lies. Here's the fact again, which I have edited the previous quote
neatly for you, see if you can read it:

"'Quote it, you pathetic liar'; it is your post you should know where
it is. Bringing Bert in to confuse the issue doesn't really work, in
fact, it only shows the opposite affect that it is you who "Make an
accusation (that I lie about your lying), fail to provide evidence to
back it up (you claim you first come to my post is for helping my
English, yet you cannot produce a quote from you OWN post to indicate
where you have said that) and then demand that the other person find
evidence that his accusation is *not* valid" (of course, you cannot
quote it, because it was never there) and then try to wiggle out of
your accusation (you lie)."

Do you own homework, you may then grow one day, big boy.

Don't believe me? Reread my previous posts.

Sorry, I spent enough time already re-reading this one.

Cannot face your pathetic grim reality, eh?

An apology might be appropriate at this point. I'd accept it.

Only have one comment for you for your shameless acceptance, you are
truly shameless.

Have you considered that the reason I am "shameless" is that I don't
have anything to be ashamed of?

No, you are "shameless" because you *are* shameless.

Is it possible that you are misusing the word "liar?"

that's to say that you have slipped into perpetuated state of
shameless "denials and recycled lies" that you can no longer to
distinguish what is lie and what is truth anymore, so you have lost
your true sense of reality.

I thought you might have an alternate definition of "liar" because,
despite copious writing and reposts of even more of that copious
writing, you can't actually articulate what you think I'm lying about.
Scott is very similar in that regard.

I don't know about Scott's story, but I do know mine; no second guess
about it, you are truly a liar.

You keep saying that, but you won't say WHY you say that. Scott does
the same thing, that's why I'm comparing you to him.

I did, so is Scott, but you've lied too much to the point that you are
no longer capable to know the truths.

One more thing - the way you are posting that doesn't always make it
clear who is speaking. An extra "carriage return" here and there, or
the actual link to the google archive might make things clearer and
easier to read.

Yup, you need to improve your level of reading comprehension, your
incompetent little knowledge shows.

Maybe if you looked at your reposts with another newsreader, you might
see the problem. Mine is plain text and monochromatic. The way my and
your words were interposed, it was a little hard to tell who the writer
was. I could tell, of course, but I thought it might make it easier to
read for someone else. There is really no need for insults and hostility
for such a suggestion.

There were no "insults and hostility" but a matter of facts. The quote
was cut&pasted from google's archive, so you were reading the google's
standard newsgroup display format, millions people read it everyday
without problems. "Yup, you need to improve your level of reading
comprehension."

I realize that you cut and pasted it from google, but just because you
do that doesn't mean the formatting is maintained. Even if it were, a
"carriage return" here and there would improve readability a lot. The
time you spend insulting me could be used cleaning up the text just a
little.

I did them that way at first but you still claimed that you cannot
read them, which proves your little knowledge maybe incapable of
reading it; apparently, you have topped off your talents.

There is some funny stuff in there though. Thanks for the memories,
but
still no lies.

I did tell you once you slip into realm of shameless, there's no
redemption for you soul...

Out of curiosity, what do you mean "there's no redemption for (my) soul"?

We have been on this block before, and this quote is in the google's
original form, let's see how it works,

It works EXACTLY like the other times you've copied from the Google
archive and ignored the formatting. Seriously, I don't care, but if YOU
want people to look at what you're reposting, you should should look at
the formatting and attribution yourself.

So, your little knowledge doesn't know that usenet is a plain text
environment which doesn't hold any web's format and attribute? Yup,
your little knowledge is rigid and small.

Look, I'll do it for you. Compare the post below to the one you copied
and pasted. (man, if this has some extra {CR}s hidden in it, I'm going
to look like a horse's ass

Redirection to confuse yourself? Yup, you do.

Quote,
Newsgroups: rec.skiing.alpine
From: taichiskiing
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, May 6 2009 8:16 am
Subject: It is called "I don't care what you gappers think how I
ski but I'm having fun" skiing
Once a net-kook, forever netkook? I did tell that you once you slip
into the shameless denials, there'll be no redemption for your soul.
One of the hallmarks of the netkook is attributing WAY TOO MUCH
signifiance to what goes on the newsgroup.
No, the hallmark of the netkooks is their lacked of self-respect/ self-
esteem, as reflected in their raving and ranting over the 'net
shamelessly. So you down-play the significance of the newsgroup
thinking you have outwitted the argument? Yup, that's the proof that
you lack of self-respect. Actually, "you lost more than just an
argument but your character, integrity, and credibility and become a
netkook that you despise the most. Pity."
It's going to be SOOOOO embarrassing when I'm down in Hell with the
murders, rapists and folks who picked the wrong religious sect and they
ask me "what are you in for?" and I have to say: "This weird netkook
thought that I 'slipped into shameless denials' regarding his hysterical
claims of greatness."
Not all murders and rapists are shameless; nevertheless, what's
shameless is shameless.
Shame is we human's natural defense mechanism. It prevents us from
making repeated mistakes. As we learn from our mistakes, we become
better, and grow. When you become shameless, then you won't learn and
you won't grow; stuck on the low-level mediocrity, that IS one hell
way to live.

IS
End quote.

Okay. You STILL haven't answered my question. What do you mean "there's
no redemption for my soul"?

Yup, you will continue to lie all your life to cover your original
lie, then you will never know the truths, so "there's no redemption
for your soul."

Yes, those were fun memories, and I got 8 2" binders of archive of it

I'm not surprised to hear that.

So next time you have an urge to review your shame, let me know, I'll
find it for you. Until then, enjoy your shame.

Let me try this a different way. What is it that I am supposed to be
ashamed of?

Shameless--no shame? Yup, kind of bagging the question, eh? Ok, enjoy
your "no shame."

On May 24, 5:28*am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On May 23, 5:21 pm, Dave Cartman wrote:





In article
,
*taichiskiing wrote:
I think this would be a much more meaningful discussion if you would
just tell me what you think I'm lying about. *Can you?

I did, and you snapped it to save your embarrassments, (wow, you even
feel embarrassed? You may have some hope... Nah, just your shameless
"denials and recycled lies" continue, hopeless!). Here's the partial
quote that you have snapped:

" Yes there is the Google archive. *Bert tries this too, to similar
effect. *Make an accusation, fail to provide evidence to back it up and
then demand that the other person find evidence that his accusation is
*not* valid. *Nice try. *You called me a liar and have thus far been
unable to provide any evidence of me lying. *It really is time to
apologize.

'Quote it, you pathetic liar'; it is your post you should know where
it is. Bringing Bert in to confuse the issue doesn't really work, in
fact, it only shows the opposite affect that it is you who "Make an
accusation (that I lie about your lying), fail to provide evidence to
back it up (you claim you first come to my post is for helping my
English, yet you cannot produce a quote from you OWN post to indicate
where you have said that) and then demand that the other person find
evidence that his accusation is *not* valid" (of course, you cannot
quote it, because it was never there) and then try to wiggle out of
your accusation (you lie)."

I still don't see what you think I'm "recycling lies" about.

Here, fill in the blanks:

Dave lied about _______________ And I say that because he said
______________ when in fact the truth is ____________________ as I
explain here _______________________.

Filling the blanks? Sounds like a junior high mid-term, is that the
only way you can comprehend the statements? Yup, a juvenile's little
knowledge it is. And there are not enough spaces to fill in all your
lies. Here's the fact again, which I have edited the previous quote
neatly for you, see if you can read it:

"'Quote it, you pathetic liar'; it is your post you should know where
it is. Bringing Bert in to confuse the issue doesn't really work, in
fact, it only shows the opposite affect that it is you who "Make an
accusation (that I lie about your lying), fail to provide evidence to
back it up (you claim you first come to my post is for helping my
English, yet you cannot produce a quote from you OWN post to indicate
where you have said that) and then demand that the other person find
evidence that his accusation is *not* valid" (of course, you cannot
quote it, because it was never there) and then try to wiggle out of
your accusation (you lie)."

Do you own homework, you may then grow one day, big boy.

Don't believe me? Reread my previous posts.

Sorry, I spent enough time already re-reading this one.

Cannot face your pathetic grim reality, eh?

An apology might be appropriate at this point. *I'd accept it.

Only have one comment for you for your shameless acceptance, you are
truly shameless.

Have you considered that the reason I am "shameless" is that I don't
have anything to be ashamed of?

No, you are "shameless" because you *are* shameless.





Is it possible that you are misusing the word "liar?"

that's to say that you have slipped into perpetuated state of
shameless "denials and recycled lies" that you can no longer to
distinguish what is lie and what is truth anymore, so you have lost
your true sense of reality.

I thought you might have an alternate definition of "liar" because,
despite copious writing and reposts of even more of that copious
writing, you can't actually articulate *what you think I'm lying about.
Scott is very similar in that regard.

I don't know about Scott's story, but I do know mine; no second guess
about it, you are truly a liar.

You keep saying that, but you won't say WHY you say that. *Scott does
the same thing, that's why I'm comparing you to him.

I did, so is Scott, but you've lied too much to the point that you are
no longer capable to know the truths.





One more thing - *the way you are posting that doesn't always make it
clear who is speaking. *An extra "carriage return" here and there, or
the actual link to the google archive might make things clearer and
easier to read.

Yup, you need to improve your level of reading comprehension, your
incompetent little knowledge shows.

Maybe if you looked at your reposts with another newsreader, you might
see the problem. *Mine is plain text and monochromatic. *The way my and
your words were interposed, it was a little hard to tell who the writer
was. *I could tell, of course, but I thought it might make it easier to
read for someone else. There is really no need for insults and hostility
for such a suggestion.

There were no "insults and hostility" but a matter of facts. The quote
was cut&pasted from google's archive, so you were reading the google's
standard newsgroup display format, millions people read it everyday
without problems. "Yup, you need to improve your level of reading
comprehension."

I realize that you cut and pasted it from google, but just because you
do that doesn't mean the formatting is maintained. *Even if it were, a
"carriage return" here and there would improve readability a lot. *The
time you spend insulting me could be used cleaning up the text just a
little.

I did them that way at first but you still claimed that you cannot
read them, which proves your little knowledge maybe incapable of
reading it; apparently, you have topped off your talents.





There is some funny stuff in there though. *Thanks for the memories,
but
still no lies.

I did tell you once you slip into realm of shameless, there's no
redemption for you soul...

Out of curiosity, what do you mean "there's no redemption for (my) soul"?

We have been on this block before, and this quote is in the google's
original form, let's see how it works,

It works EXACTLY like the other times you've copied from the Google
archive and ignored the formatting. *Seriously, I don't care, but if YOU
want people to look at what you're reposting, you should should look at
the formatting and attribution yourself.

So, your little knowledge doesn't know that usenet is a plain text
environment which doesn't hold any web's format and attribute? Yup,
your little knowledge is rigid and small.

Look, I'll do it for you. *Compare the post below to the one you copied
and pasted. *(man, if this has some extra {CR}s hidden in it, I'm going
to look like a horse's ass

Redirection to confuse yourself? Yup, you do.





Quote,
Newsgroups: rec.skiing.alpine
From: taichiskiing
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, May 6 2009 8:16 am
Subject: It is called "I don't care what you gappers think how I
ski but I'm having fun" skiing
Once a net-kook, forever netkook? I did tell that you once you slip
into the shameless denials, there'll be no redemption for your soul.
One of the hallmarks of the netkook is attributing WAY TOO MUCH
signifiance to what goes on the newsgroup.
No, the hallmark of the netkooks is their lacked of self-respect/ self-
esteem, as reflected in their raving and ranting over the 'net
shamelessly. *So you down-play the significance of the newsgroup
thinking you have outwitted the argument? Yup, that's the proof that
you lack of self-respect. Actually, "you lost more than just an
argument but your character, integrity, and credibility and become a
netkook that you despise the most. Pity."
It's going to be SOOOOO embarrassing when I'm down in Hell with the
murders, rapists and folks who picked the wrong religious sect and they
ask me "what are you in for?" and I have to say: "This weird netkook
thought that I 'slipped into shameless denials' regarding his hysterical
claims of greatness."
Not all murders and rapists are shameless; nevertheless, what's
shameless is shameless.
Shame is we human's natural defense mechanism. It prevents us from
making repeated mistakes. As we learn from our mistakes, we become
better, and grow. When you become shameless, then you won't learn and
you won't grow; stuck on the low-level mediocrity, that IS one hell
way to live.

IS
End quote.

Okay. *You STILL haven't answered my question. What do you mean "there's
no redemption for my soul"?

Yup, you will continue to lie all your life to cover your original
lie, then you will never know the truths, so "there's no redemption
for your soul."

Yes, those were fun memories, and I got 8 2" binders of archive of it

I'm not surprised to hear that.

So next time you have an urge to review your shame, let me know, I'll
find it for you. Until then, enjoy your shame.

Let me try this a different way. *What is it that I am supposed to be
ashamed of?

Shameless--no shame? Yup, kind of bagging the question, eh? Ok, enjoy
your "no shame."

Does "bagging the question" come from the same dictionary as "snapping
posts" and "gappers"?

On May 24, 8:03 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On May 24, 5:28 am, taichiskiing
wrote:

Shameless--no shame? Yup, kind of bagging the question, eh? Ok, enjoy
your "no shame."

Does "bagging the question" come from the same dictionary as "snapping
posts" and "gappers"?

Oops, a misspelling that spelling and grammar checker misses;
nevertheless, "begging the question" is a sound logical reasoning that
you learn in college math, you should know where it comes from. Given
you gappers have no shame, what are you gappers going to be "ashamed
of" is a "begging the question," however, it does reflect a state of
shamelessness.

On May 24, 10:48*am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On May 24, 8:03 am, Richard Henry wrote:

On May 24, 5:28 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
Shameless--no shame? Yup, kind of bagging the question, eh? Ok, enjoy
your "no shame."

Does "bagging the question" come from the same dictionary as "snapping
posts" and "gappers"?

Oops, a misspelling that spelling and grammar checker misses;
nevertheless, "begging the question" is a sound logical reasoning that
you learn in college math, you should know where it comes from. Given
you gappers have no shame, what are you gappers going to be "ashamed
of" is a "begging the question," however, it does reflect a state of
shamelessness.

As someone who has spent many hours in college math classes including
classes for a post graduate engineering degree, I'd have to say that
the term 'begging the question' never came up in any of those classes.

On May 24, 10:04*am, Scottum wrote:
On May 24, 10:48*am, taichiskiing
wrote:



On May 24, 8:03 am, Richard Henry wrote:

On May 24, 5:28 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
Shameless--no shame? Yup, kind of bagging the question, eh? Ok, enjoy
your "no shame."

Does "bagging the question" come from the same dictionary as "snapping
posts" and "gappers"?

Oops, a misspelling that spelling and grammar checker misses;
nevertheless, "begging the question" is a sound logical reasoning that
you learn in college math, you should know where it comes from. Given
you gappers have no shame, what are you gappers going to be "ashamed
of" is a "begging the question," however, it does reflect a state of
shamelessness.

As someone who has spent many hours in college math classes including
classes for a post graduate engineering degree, I'd have to say that
the term 'begging the question' never came up in any of those classes.

Gapper.

On May 24, 5:24*am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On May 23, 1:19 pm, Richard Henry wrote:

I would nominate itchy for a KOTM award, but I'm not sure the voters
would understand him enough to appreciate his true kookiness.

Good, I must have done something extraordinary to expose you shameless
netkooks' kookiness, you shameless netkooks.

Exactly. I was delighted and honored to win MY awards. Because I
knew I was getting to the assholes. In the Bizarro world of Usenet,
telling the truth makes you a kook, but being a cowardly, lying,
disgusting freak makes you one of the 'in crowd".

On May 24, 5:19*am, downhill wrote:
Dave Cartman wrote:
A psychopathic pathological
liar playing pathologically psychopathic
games?
You know what is really hilarious?

The number of things wrong with the preceding sentence?

I just question the logic of twisting the nipples of two village idiots,
it like sticking it out the window on a warm breezy day.

How about one of you freaks twists my nips in person?
Oooops, forgot. That would take balls. And in this village, nobody
has any.

On May 24, 4:36*am, Richard Henry wrote:
On May 23, 8:36*pm, twobuddha wrote:





Perv, perv. *I've caught you in hundreds of lies, after which you
ignore being caught, and then keep on lying.
The mere assertion that you are "supposed to be lying about" is a lie
in itself: we both know how often you lie, with such enjoyment and
skill: you truly are an accomplished and skillful prevaricator.
Pervert Dave, I'm going to give you a clue. No healthy, whole human
being is without shame, to one degree or another.
The mere reality that you are unfamiliar with the emotion, and cannot
begin to understand that your behavior here is shameless, speaks
volumes about you.
Go back to Wiki, Perv. *Read about psychopaths. *Read about yourself.
Allow me an illustration. *Your good buddy Brain Fried Bob Thompson is
as shame-based an asshole as I have ever run across, anywhere,
anytime. *When alcohol and drugs cannot dull the sense of self-
loathing, he comes up with ever more ridiculous tactics to attack
yours truly, who exposes the shame. *It is ultimately a futile attempt
to transfer shame with shameful behavior, which just worsens his
condition. *You might have noticed that he has been getting even more
delusional and desperate lately. *If you were actually a friend, you
would try to help him: eventually, alcohol loses its ability to dull
the pain of self knowledge.
But in your case, shame does not work. *You have no conception of how
your behavior violates common ethical and moral norms. *To you, it is
all a rather amusing game, with no shame attached.
You really are a fascinating case study. *Very predictable, very
consistent, and I have learned so much about people like you from
****ing with you here.
Thanks for the education. *But as with shame, you have no clue about
how much you have taught me, without ever knowing it.
Enough of this civilized chatter. *Like trying to teach a pig to sing..

As I have said before, most of Scott's messages can, with great
logical clarity. be seen as a response to "Tell us a little about
yourself".-

C'mon, Dickless Henry. You can do better than that. Ludicrous and
ridiculous.
What is truly revealing is that you have no more capability to
understand what I wrote than your buddy Pervert Dave does.
I sure as hell told you a little about yourself, didn't I?
Thanks for the education, Dickless. I understand assholes so much
better having known you.
EMERGENCY SOCCER GAME!!!!!
The shame, the shame.