What's the matter with you idiots??

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:bIRkb.58044$La.53299@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:sKJkb.56627$La.40667@fed1read02...

snip
So quit ducking the question!

Speaking of ducking questions, you keep on ducking one. What do you
think of
VernDave's hypocrisy in posting his views about enforcement of the
men'sbbs
rules, then saying that other peoples' talking about the mensbbs
rules
doesn't belong here?

I used to think you were smarter than Scott. All he cna do is repeat his
formulas.

I guess you have grown out of it.

So why do you keep ducking answering the question?

Bert

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:nVRkb.58047$La.40358@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:sKJkb.56627$La.40667@fed1read02...

snip
So quit ducking the question!

Speaking of ducking questions, you keep on ducking one. What do you
think of
VernDave's hypocrisy in posting his views about enforcement of the
men'sbbs
rules, then saying that other peoples' talking about the mensbbs
rules
doesn't belong here?


In case you have me confused qith someone else, let me remind you that I
don't care. On this issue I disagree with both you and Vern. I think
mens
should be discussed on rsa, and rsa on mens. Intertwined history, and all
that. Since the Troubles began, rsa has evolved into 2 of the busiest
groups in the rec.* domain. Men's has devolved into 2 postings a day -
"Dead", as Scott put it.

Evading the question, as usual. The point isn't whether you agree with
VernDave about men's. The point is VernDAve's hypocrisy, saying one thing
and doing another.

Bert

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:xGRkb.58043$La.48104@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:yqJkb.56553$La.13059@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...


And you *still* are ducking the question:

Speaking of ducking questions, you keep on ducking one. What do you
think of
VernDave's hypocrisy in posting his views about enforcement of the
men'sbbs
rules, then saying that other peoples' talking about the mensbbs
rules
doesn't belong here?


I've answered your questions several times, and you've twisted my answer
into something else every time.

Time for you to stop trying to put words in my mouth, and answer the
question you keep duckikng.

Have you noticed all the support you're getting on this?

So quit ducking the question.

Bert

in article , Chuck at
wrote on 10/20/03 12:31 PM:

TS wrote in news:terrapinserver-
:

I come here every once in a while to read some stuff about skiing. The
season is upon us and I want to get excited about another great year.
Yet all I see is stupid, insane, vulgar posts about one another.
What a ****ing cesspool you people have made this group. Ever hear of
EMAIL for your juvinile bickering?
Nice going, assholes.

Two simple solutions to the problem.

1) Subscribe to rec.skiing.alpine.moderated
2) killfile , and anyone who replies to him.

It really is that simple

One simple solution: act utterly without any morals, ethics, decency, or
integrity. It really is that simple. You'll fit right in here, like this
asshole.

in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/20/03 8:47 AM:

In article ,
scottabe wrote:

You really are insane. Other way around. Kerrison couldn't get over
people
laughing at her when she got her fat ass whipped at Whistler. But keep
lying and lying and lying. Makes you feel good.
Clue time. None of you sick ****s ever had the balls to laugh at me to
my
face.

I'm laughing at you right now, fat boy. g

As I said, coward boy, none of you sick ****s ever had the balls to laugh
at
me to my face. g


All in good time, Scotty. g

Four and a half years? As I said, coward boy, none of you sick ****s ever
had the balls to laugh at me to my face.


You keep imagining that we're all one person, Scotty. I wasn't involved
in any of this four and a half years ago.

You have your chance on several occasions. No show. Typical rsa coward.

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:nVRkb.58047$La.40358@fed1read02...

In case you have me confused with someone else, let me remind you that I
don't care. On this issue I disagree with both you and Vern. I think
mens
should be discussed on rsa, and rsa on mens. Intertwined history, and
all
that. Since the Troubles began, rsa has evolved into 2 of the busiest
groups in the rec.* domain. Men's has devolved into 2 postings a day -
"Dead", as Scott put it.

Evading the question, as usual. The point isn't whether you agree with
VernDave about men's. The point is VernDAve's hypocrisy, saying one thing
and doing another.

I think a frank discussion on mensbbs about the history of the rsa problems
would liven things up a bit over there and resurrect it from the "Dead". It
would also give your active posters a chance to participate and see the
classy kind of arguments you and Scott are capable of.

How about it? Say a trial period of 5 days. You can still be the
moderator, and you can kill any posts that make obscene remarks or defaming
accusations against another poster.

Should be interesting. Just say go.

in article 3nXkb.59003$La.22210@fed1read02, Richard Henry at
wrote on 10/20/03 1:14 PM:


"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:nVRkb.58047$La.40358@fed1read02...

In case you have me confused with someone else, let me remind you that I
don't care. On this issue I disagree with both you and Vern. I think
mens
should be discussed on rsa, and rsa on mens. Intertwined history, and
all
that. Since the Troubles began, rsa has evolved into 2 of the busiest
groups in the rec.* domain. Men's has devolved into 2 postings a day -
"Dead", as Scott put it.

Evading the question, as usual. The point isn't whether you agree with
VernDave about men's. The point is VernDAve's hypocrisy, saying one thing
and doing another.

I think a frank discussion on mensbbs about the history of the rsa problems
would liven things up a bit over there and resurrect it from the "Dead".

So you can lie there, too? If you were "frank" you'd be in jail.

It
would also give your active posters a chance to participate and see the
classy kind of arguments you and Scott are capable of.

It would give them a chance to see what a psychopath you are.

How about it? Say a trial period of 5 days. You can still be the
moderator, and you can kill any posts that make obscene remarks or defaming
accusations against another poster.

Should be interesting. Just say go.

Just say no. We don't associate with psychopaths and assholes.

In article ,
"Bert Hoff" wrote:

"Vern93" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bert Hoff" wrote:


Practice what you preach.

You posted here in RSA:
"Co-moderator"? "Assistant Moderator"? "Supreme Commander of the
Universe"? Under-Secretary of Doughnut Glaze"? I really don't care
what you guys call each other or how your mensbbs hierarchy is set up.
Obviously you and Scott are exempt from your own mensbbs rules that you
are forever spouting off about in RSA anyway.

Your comments about whether Scott and I are exempt from the mensbbs
rules
don't belong on RSA.

I wish you would stop trying to make issues regarding your mensbbs the
topic of the day. I don't pretend to understand your compulsion to post
on RSA regarding mensbbs.

It was *you* who posted that, not I. You keep trying to make men's the topic
of the day, giving your own views, then hypocritically telling others that
*they* should not.

Bert, are you trying that silly thing you do, where you try to accuse
the person complaining about something you do by accusing them of doing
that. Please don't tell me you're back to the "PeeWee Hoff 'I know you
are, but what am I'" thing. That's just sad.

I was hoping you had outgrown that a while back. But then again, I
thought you were past the misleading post snipping thing that you do.

Regardless, it is you mensbbs interlopers who keep trying to make menbbs
issues the topic of the day. If you didn't insist on bringing your
troubles here, then I wouldn't ask you to take them "back home." You
guys are out of control and running wild over here.

Don't post stuff like the post I quoted, if you don't think talk about the
mensbbs belongs here.

I don't think talk about mensbbs belongs here. Frankly, I'm surprised
that you seem to think it does.

I also think it's hypocrital of you to delete the part of my post where
I say that, as well as giving a link back to where such discussion
belongs. I also noticed you have never apologized for all the lies
you've told about me.

That should be simple enough that even you can grasp it.

Simple, eh? You mean all I have to do is click here, and the discussion
goes back to mensbbs, where it rightly belongs? That is pretty simple.

news://news.annexcafe.com/annexcafe.men.mensbbs

In article ,
scottabe wrote:

Are you having fun with this transparent manipulation?
You keep stalking us to mens. Stop stalking and you won't have to read
about you stalking us. Don't you agree that you should stop stalking so we
can stop discussing your stalking here?

What the hell are you babbling about. Please apologize for this lie. A
good and decent man would.

Dave

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:yqJkb.56553$La.13059@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...


I didn't say that I agreed with everything he said, *or* that I didn't
agree with everything he said.

You're busy trying to put words in others' mouths, just like Ass
Baker.

Ok, let's get it straight point by point.

1. Scott's "eulogy" of Mike Speegle: no support.

2. Scott's claim to the right to challenge lies wherever he finds them:
no
support.

3. Scott's claim that numerous non-involved parties committed perjury
in
the Seattle court hearing: no support.

4. Scott's claim that ant stole the tickets he gave her: support.

Did I get them all right? Are there any more that should be on the
list?

No, you twisted and misstated them all.

Aha, you fell right into the trap! If all responses are mistated, then
we can simply choose the alternative answer and finally find out how you
really feel about Scott's positions on things.

Now I'll fire up the pentium G5 processor and feed it that data. And
Voila'

1. Scott's "eulogy" of Mike Speegle: Bert supports.
2. Scott's claim to the right to challenge lies wherever he finds them:
Bert supports.
3. Scott's claim that numerous non-involved parties committed perjury in
the Seattle court hearing: Bert supports.
4. Scott's claim that ant stole the tickets he gave her: No support.

Well, thanks. That's the closest you come to answering a question in a
long time. It also explains a lot. Thanks for your clarity.

Dave