Scott Abraham Syndrome

On May 11, 10:08*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 8:40*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 5:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 4:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
And you've been laughed at by law enforcement in
Richard's
neck
of
the
woods, then.

Excuse me? *I have never contacted any California LE.
*You
just
got
busted making up another whopper of a lie, Wack Job..
*What
were
you
saying about credibility?

You really should remember your lies, Scottie. You've
already
claimed
to
have contacted them but that they declined to do anything
about
it...

Busted again, you pathetic idiot. *You really should remember
your
lies. *I never claimed to have contacted California LE.
*Never
did.
Typical Alan Baker: when exposed as a liar, keep lying.

Yes, Scottie, you did. Or don't you remember saying this:

No, Baker, I didn't. *Once again, when caught in a blatant,
obvious,
ridiculously transparent lie, you ignore being caught and
continue to
make up even stranger rationalizations for your lying.

'I acted on it. *LE decided not to. *Shame. *Evidence was
there,
wasn't
worth their time. *Little things like perverts, child
molesters,
identity thefts aced me out. *If I had been a woman, they
probably
would have. *But as one investigator told me, "We're not
worried
about
you: you can take care of yourself if they ever decide to
escalate,
and those asshole ain't got the balls." '

How did LE decide "not to" and how did you know of this
decision if
you
never contacted them?

Baker, you pathetic sick freak, you stated *I had contacted
California
LE. *Then you offered this as proof when caught lying. *You are
insane.

And it proves you did contact them. Otherwise:

1. How did you know what they decided to do?

2. Why were they deciding anything in the first place?

3. Or are you claiming that that wasn't an actual quote from you?
(Be
aware, I can produce the link if needed).

Since you punked out on answering my question the first time
around, I
expect nothing more this time, but it's fun watching you splutter.

Baker, you deranged nutjob delusional dumb**** idiot, you claimed I
had contacted California LE. *I did not. *I never said I did.

So then what law enforcement agency did you contact? You're not really
trying to get off on the semantic that it didn't happen to be a
California agency, are you?

Baker, deal with getting busted lying. *Nothing semantic about it..
You lied. *Period. *Admit it. *Be a man.

Where was the lie?

You posted that you "acted on it" and that "LE decided not to". You
couldn't have said either of those things if you were not in contact
with law enforcement.

Apologize for lying. *Admit you lied. *That's what a man would do.
And that is why you are incapable of admitting to a lie.

How did you know what "LE decided not to" do if you weren't in contact
with them? How was there anything to decide in the first place?

Punk out again, Scottie: it's what you're good at!

I punked out? *Amazing. *You lied, got busted lying, continue to
justify and rationalize lying, and then like the punk you are, you
talk ****.

Yup. Punked out... ...again.

Truly amazing. *From the cowardly bitch who punked out on Whistler.

On May 11, 11:34*am, Scottum wrote:
On May 11, 12:07*pm, Ted Waldron wrote:





In article
,

*Scottum wrote:
On May 10, 5:14*pm, twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 2:43*pm, Scottum wrote:

On May 10, 1:57*pm, twobuddha wrote:

On May 10, 12:08*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

In article
,
*Richard Henry wrote:

In another website not too far away, I characterized another poster
as
suffering from "Scott Abraham Syndrome". *His particular
characteristic was accusing me of lying and then not being able or
willing to provide any concrete examples.

That got me to thinking - other than empty accusations or
insinuations
of lying, what other behaviors belong in the SAS definition?

This already well described:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional

Pervert Dave goes Wikipedia insane defamation again. *How typical.
How pathetic.

The problem with delusions is you can't talk people out of them. *
Anything you say to them becomes part of the delusion.

Translation: *No matter how much Pervert Dave Davidson lies, I know
the truth and continue to expose him as a lying piece of **** cowardly
pervert.
Which I just did again.

Think of a delusional mind as a big hot fire. *Almost anything you
throw
into it to "cool it down" become part of the fire and actually makes
it
burn hotter.

Think of the psychopathic mind as a sewer. *Any truth thrown into it
gets ignored as the **** floats to the top and gets repeated.
How laughable. *How transparently ludicrous. *How typical of the
psychopaths of rsa.

The novel "Shutter Island" (and to a lesser degree, the movie) do a
good
job of describing a delusion from the "inside."

RSA does a wonderful job in providing examples of the psychopathic
mind and how it works, especially with these two assholes.

And just for Scott 'Cleveland Steamer'
Abraham:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia
Since that's all he's thinking about today.

No surprise you know what the word means. *First hand experience, eh?- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are the one who doesn't stop talking about it, not me.

http://tinyurl.com/2d8yrdg

"Pop Tarts are what you eat when Bootsie lays a log in your mouth
and tells you to swallow."

besides probably hundreds of scatological posts by Scooter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ain't Google a bitch, Scatt?-

No.

On May 11, 12:02*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
Ted Waldron wrote:

plonk!!

Is that the sound Ted makes when he chomps down on a fresh Pop Tart?

On May 11, 11:07*am, Ted Waldron wrote:
In article
,





*Scottum wrote:
On May 10, 5:14*pm, twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 2:43*pm, Scottum wrote:

On May 10, 1:57*pm, twobuddha wrote:

On May 10, 12:08*pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

In article
,
*Richard Henry wrote:

In another website not too far away, I characterized another poster
as
suffering from "Scott Abraham Syndrome". *His particular
characteristic was accusing me of lying and then not being able or
willing to provide any concrete examples.

That got me to thinking - other than empty accusations or
insinuations
of lying, what other behaviors belong in the SAS definition?

This already well described:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional

Pervert Dave goes Wikipedia insane defamation again. *How typical.
How pathetic.

The problem with delusions is you can't talk people out of them.. *
Anything you say to them becomes part of the delusion.

Translation: *No matter how much Pervert Dave Davidson lies, I know
the truth and continue to expose him as a lying piece of **** cowardly
pervert.
Which I just did again.

Think of a delusional mind as a big hot fire. *Almost anything you
throw
into it to "cool it down" become part of the fire and actually makes
it
burn hotter.

Think of the psychopathic mind as a sewer. *Any truth thrown into it
gets ignored as the **** floats to the top and gets repeated.
How laughable. *How transparently ludicrous. *How typical of the
psychopaths of rsa.

The novel "Shutter Island" (and to a lesser degree, the movie) do a
good
job of describing a delusion from the "inside."

RSA does a wonderful job in providing examples of the psychopathic
mind and how it works, especially with these two assholes.

And just for Scott 'Cleveland Steamer'
Abraham:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia
Since that's all he's thinking about today.

No surprise you know what the word means. *First hand experience, eh?- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are the one who doesn't stop talking about it, not me.

http://tinyurl.com/2d8yrdg

"Pop Tarts are what you eat when Bootsie lays a log in your mouth
and tells you to swallow."

besides probably hundreds of scatological posts by Scooter

Teddy, Teddy. For every time I tell you freaks to go **** yourself, I
can find ten where you freaks go scatalogical and accuse me of
everything from raping children and mass murder to ****ing Anthea.
How hypocritical. How ridiculous. Now normal for Ted Waldron.
Show the post, Ted, or lay a log in your mouth and have a Pop Tart.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA HAHAHA

On May 11, 10:33*am, Richard Henry wrote:
On May 11, 9:36*am, twobuddha wrote:

On May 10, 10:22*pm, Richard Henry wrote:

I guess I should also include "attempts to dominate every thread".

How dickless of you, Dickless Henry. *You start a thread that grossly
defames me, that lies about me, and then you have the gall to
criticize me when I expose you as a pathological liar?
Typical psychopathic Dickless Richard Henry behavior.
Day 123 of the Embarassment of Richard Henry. *Hey, still waiting for
that call from SPD. *Or contact info?
EMERGENCY SOCCER GAME!!!!!!

Let's see - so far we have

1. *Accuses others of lying and then is not able or willing to provide
any concrete examples.

Bull****. That is an outright lie.

2. *Attempts to dominate every thread.

Another outright lie. I merely object to your lies. As I do in this
post.

3. *When criticized, responds with obscenities and nonsense phrases.

If you want to call outright lies, defamations, and threats
"criticism", I plead guilty.
Here is my favorite nonsense phrase, preceded by an obscenity.
Go **** yourself, EMERGENCY SOCCER GAME!!!!!!
Everybody laugh at Richard Henry for getting busted in such a
ridiculous chain of bull****.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA HAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHABW HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AAHAHAHAHABWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

In article
,
twobuddha wrote:

On May 11, 10:08*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 8:40*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 5:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 4:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

om,

*twobuddha wrote:
And you've been laughed at by law enforcement in
Richard's
neck
of
the
woods, then.

Excuse me? *I have never contacted any California LE.
*You
just
got
busted making up another whopper of a lie, Wack Job.
*What
were
you
saying about credibility?

You really should remember your lies, Scottie. You've
already
claimed
to
have contacted them but that they declined to do
anything
about
it...

Busted again, you pathetic idiot. *You really should
remember
your
lies. *I never claimed to have contacted California LE.
*Never
did.
Typical Alan Baker: when exposed as a liar, keep lying.

Yes, Scottie, you did. Or don't you remember saying this:

No, Baker, I didn't. *Once again, when caught in a blatant,
obvious,
ridiculously transparent lie, you ignore being caught and
continue to
make up even stranger rationalizations for your lying.

'I acted on it. *LE decided not to. *Shame. *Evidence was
there,
wasn't
worth their time. *Little things like perverts, child
molesters,
identity thefts aced me out. *If I had been a woman, they
probably
would have. *But as one investigator told me, "We're not
worried
about
you: you can take care of yourself if they ever decide to
escalate,
and those asshole ain't got the balls." '

How did LE decide "not to" and how did you know of this
decision if
you
never contacted them?

Baker, you pathetic sick freak, you stated *I had contacted
California
LE. *Then you offered this as proof when caught lying. *You
are
insane.

And it proves you did contact them. Otherwise:

1. How did you know what they decided to do?

2. Why were they deciding anything in the first place?

3. Or are you claiming that that wasn't an actual quote from
you?
(Be
aware, I can produce the link if needed).

Since you punked out on answering my question the first time
around, I
expect nothing more this time, but it's fun watching you
splutter.

Baker, you deranged nutjob delusional dumb**** idiot, you claimed
I
had contacted California LE. *I did not. *I never said I did.

So then what law enforcement agency did you contact? You're not
really
trying to get off on the semantic that it didn't happen to be a
California agency, are you?

Baker, deal with getting busted lying. *Nothing semantic about it.
You lied. *Period. *Admit it. *Be a man.

Where was the lie?

You posted that you "acted on it" and that "LE decided not to". You
couldn't have said either of those things if you were not in contact
with law enforcement.

Apologize for lying. *Admit you lied. *That's what a man would
do.
And that is why you are incapable of admitting to a lie.

How did you know what "LE decided not to" do if you weren't in
contact
with them? How was there anything to decide in the first place?

Punk out again, Scottie: it's what you're good at!

I punked out? *Amazing. *You lied, got busted lying, continue to
justify and rationalize lying, and then like the punk you are, you
talk ****.

Yup. Punked out... ...again.

Truly amazing. *From the cowardly bitch who punked out on Whistler.

I knew you'd have a weasel -- like a second information tower....

...and I was right!

You are insane. *Get help.

Can't deal with the questions, huh?

You are insane. *Get help.

And we're down to your cop out.

You said you that "LE didn't act on it" where "it" was information
regarding Richard Henry. How could you have said that if you didn't
contact them? Or were you lying then?


No, Baker, we are down to you rationalizing getting busted telling
another whopper of a lie, and avoiding taking responsibility for your
lies. As usual. A man would man up. But everybody knows you are not
a man.
Go **** yourself, wack job.

What was the lie? The quote I gave?

You said that "LE decided not to act on it" where "it" was something you
acted on.

How you know of that decision and why were they even making a decision
in the first place if you hadn't contacted them?

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

On May 11, 1:30*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*twobuddha wrote:
On May 11, 10:08*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 8:40*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 5:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 4:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

om,

*twobuddha wrote:
And you've been laughed at by law enforcement in
Richard's
neck
of
the
woods, then.

Excuse me? *I have never contacted any California LE.
*You
just
got
busted making up another whopper of a lie, Wack Job.
*What
were
you
saying about credibility?

You really should remember your lies, Scottie. You've
already
claimed
to
have contacted them but that they declined to do
anything
about
it...

Busted again, you pathetic idiot. *You really should
remember
your
lies. *I never claimed to have contacted California LE.
*Never
did.
Typical Alan Baker: when exposed as a liar, keep lying.

Yes, Scottie, you did. Or don't you remember saying this:

No, Baker, I didn't. *Once again, when caught in a blatant,
obvious,
ridiculously transparent lie, you ignore being caught and
continue to
make up even stranger rationalizations for your lying.

'I acted on it. *LE decided not to. *Shame. *Evidence was
there,
wasn't
worth their time. *Little things like perverts, child
molesters,
identity thefts aced me out. *If I had been a woman, they
probably
would have. *But as one investigator told me, "We're not
worried
about
you: you can take care of yourself if they ever decide to
escalate,
and those asshole ain't got the balls." '

How did LE decide "not to" and how did you know of this
decision if
you
never contacted them?

Baker, you pathetic sick freak, you stated *I had contacted
California
LE. *Then you offered this as proof when caught lying.. *You
are
insane.

And it proves you did contact them. Otherwise:

1. How did you know what they decided to do?

2. Why were they deciding anything in the first place?

3. Or are you claiming that that wasn't an actual quote from
you?
(Be
aware, I can produce the link if needed).

Since you punked out on answering my question the first time
around, I
expect nothing more this time, but it's fun watching you
splutter.

Baker, you deranged nutjob delusional dumb**** idiot, you claimed
I
had contacted California LE. *I did not. *I never said I did.

So then what law enforcement agency did you contact? You're not
really
trying to get off on the semantic that it didn't happen to be a
California agency, are you?

Baker, deal with getting busted lying. *Nothing semantic about it.
You lied. *Period. *Admit it. *Be a man.

Where was the lie?

You posted that you "acted on it" and that "LE decided not to". You
couldn't have said either of those things if you were not in contact
with law enforcement.

Apologize for lying. *Admit you lied. *That's what a man would
do.
And that is why you are incapable of admitting to a lie.

How did you know what "LE decided not to" do if you weren't in
contact
with them? How was there anything to decide in the first place?

Punk out again, Scottie: it's what you're good at!

I punked out? *Amazing. *You lied, got busted lying, continue to
justify and rationalize lying, and then like the punk you are, you
talk ****.

Yup. Punked out... ...again.

Truly amazing. *From the cowardly bitch who punked out on Whistler.

I knew you'd have a weasel -- like a second information tower....

...and I was right!

You are insane. *Get help.

Can't deal with the questions, huh?

You are insane. *Get help.

And we're down to your cop out.

You said you that "LE didn't act on it" where "it" was information
regarding Richard Henry. How could you have said that if you didn't
contact them? Or were you lying then?

No, Baker, we are down to you rationalizing getting busted telling
another whopper of a lie, and avoiding taking responsibility for your
lies. *As usual. *A man would man up. *But everybody knows you are not
a man.
Go **** yourself, wack job.

What was the lie? The quote I gave?

You said that "LE decided not to act on it" where "it" was something you
acted on.

How you know of that decision and why were they even making a decision
in the first place if you hadn't contacted them?


You got busted in an outright lie. Man up. Stop making excuses.
Stop blaming me. You lied. You got caught. For once in your
nutless, pussy life, act like a man.

In article
,
twobuddha wrote:

On May 11, 1:30*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*twobuddha wrote:
On May 11, 10:08*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 8:40*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 5:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

m,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 4:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

ps.c
om,

*twobuddha wrote:
And you've been laughed at by law enforcement
in
Richard's
neck
of
the
woods, then.

Excuse me? *I have never contacted any California
LE.
*You
just
got
busted making up another whopper of a lie, Wack
Job.
*What
were
you
saying about credibility?

You really should remember your lies, Scottie.
You've
already
claimed
to
have contacted them but that they declined to do
anything
about
it...

Busted again, you pathetic idiot. *You really should
remember
your
lies. *I never claimed to have contacted California
LE.
*Never
did.
Typical Alan Baker: when exposed as a liar, keep
lying.

Yes, Scottie, you did. Or don't you remember saying
this:

No, Baker, I didn't. *Once again, when caught in a
blatant,
obvious,
ridiculously transparent lie, you ignore being caught and
continue to
make up even stranger rationalizations for your lying.

'I acted on it. *LE decided not to. *Shame. *Evidence
was
there,
wasn't
worth their time. *Little things like perverts, child
molesters,
identity thefts aced me out. *If I had been a woman,
they
probably
would have. *But as one investigator told me, "We're
not
worried
about
you: you can take care of yourself if they ever decide
to
escalate,
and those asshole ain't got the balls." '

How did LE decide "not to" and how did you know of this
decision if
you
never contacted them?

Baker, you pathetic sick freak, you stated *I had
contacted
California
LE. *Then you offered this as proof when caught lying.
*You
are
insane.

And it proves you did contact them. Otherwise:

1. How did you know what they decided to do?

2. Why were they deciding anything in the first place?

3. Or are you claiming that that wasn't an actual quote
from
you?
(Be
aware, I can produce the link if needed).

Since you punked out on answering my question the first
time
around, I
expect nothing more this time, but it's fun watching you
splutter.

Baker, you deranged nutjob delusional dumb**** idiot, you
claimed
I
had contacted California LE. *I did not. *I never said I did.

So then what law enforcement agency did you contact? You're not
really
trying to get off on the semantic that it didn't happen to be a
California agency, are you?

Baker, deal with getting busted lying. *Nothing semantic about
it.
You lied. *Period. *Admit it. *Be a man.

Where was the lie?

You posted that you "acted on it" and that "LE decided not to". You
couldn't have said either of those things if you were not in
contact
with law enforcement.

Apologize for lying. *Admit you lied. *That's what a man
would
do.
And that is why you are incapable of admitting to a lie.

How did you know what "LE decided not to" do if you weren't in
contact
with them? How was there anything to decide in the first place?

Punk out again, Scottie: it's what you're good at!

I punked out? *Amazing. *You lied, got busted lying, continue to
justify and rationalize lying, and then like the punk you are,
you
talk ****.

Yup. Punked out... ...again.

Truly amazing. *From the cowardly bitch who punked out on
Whistler.

I knew you'd have a weasel -- like a second information tower....

...and I was right!

You are insane. *Get help.

Can't deal with the questions, huh?

You are insane. *Get help.

And we're down to your cop out.

You said you that "LE didn't act on it" where "it" was information
regarding Richard Henry. How could you have said that if you didn't
contact them? Or were you lying then?

No, Baker, we are down to you rationalizing getting busted telling
another whopper of a lie, and avoiding taking responsibility for your
lies. *As usual. *A man would man up. *But everybody knows you are not
a man.
Go **** yourself, wack job.

What was the lie? The quote I gave?

You said that "LE decided not to act on it" where "it" was something you
acted on.

How you know of that decision and why were they even making a decision
in the first place if you hadn't contacted them?


You got busted in an outright lie. Man up. Stop making excuses.

What lie was that?

Stop blaming me. You lied. You got caught. For once in your
nutless, pussy life, act like a man.

Right after you tell me in straightforward language what you're claiming
I lied about...

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

On May 11, 1:55*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*twobuddha wrote:
On May 11, 1:30*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 11, 10:08*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 8:40*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 5:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

m,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 4:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

ps.c
om,

*twobuddha wrote:
And you've been laughed at by law enforcement
in
Richard's
neck
of
the
woods, then.

Excuse me? *I have never contacted any California
LE.
*You
just
got
busted making up another whopper of a lie, Wack
Job.
*What
were
you
saying about credibility?

You really should remember your lies, Scottie..
You've
already
claimed
to
have contacted them but that they declined to do
anything
about
it...

Busted again, you pathetic idiot. *You really should
remember
your
lies. *I never claimed to have contacted California
LE.
*Never
did.
Typical Alan Baker: when exposed as a liar, keep
lying.

Yes, Scottie, you did. Or don't you remember saying
this:

No, Baker, I didn't. *Once again, when caught in a
blatant,
obvious,
ridiculously transparent lie, you ignore being caught and
continue to
make up even stranger rationalizations for your lying.

'I acted on it. *LE decided not to. *Shame. *Evidence
was
there,
wasn't
worth their time. *Little things like perverts, child
molesters,
identity thefts aced me out. *If I had been a woman,
they
probably
would have. *But as one investigator told me, "We're
not
worried
about
you: you can take care of yourself if they ever decide
to
escalate,
and those asshole ain't got the balls." '

How did LE decide "not to" and how did you know of this
decision if
you
never contacted them?

Baker, you pathetic sick freak, you stated *I had
contacted
California
LE. *Then you offered this as proof when caught lying.
*You
are
insane.

And it proves you did contact them. Otherwise:

1. How did you know what they decided to do?

2. Why were they deciding anything in the first place?

3. Or are you claiming that that wasn't an actual quote
from
you?
(Be
aware, I can produce the link if needed).

Since you punked out on answering my question the first
time
around, I
expect nothing more this time, but it's fun watching you
splutter.

Baker, you deranged nutjob delusional dumb**** idiot, you
claimed
I
had contacted California LE. *I did not. *I never said I did.

So then what law enforcement agency did you contact? You're not
really
trying to get off on the semantic that it didn't happen to be a
California agency, are you?

Baker, deal with getting busted lying. *Nothing semantic about
it.
You lied. *Period. *Admit it. *Be a man.

Where was the lie?

You posted that you "acted on it" and that "LE decided not to". You
couldn't have said either of those things if you were not in
contact
with law enforcement.

Apologize for lying. *Admit you lied. *That's what a man
would
do.
And that is why you are incapable of admitting to a lie..

How did you know what "LE decided not to" do if you weren't in
contact
with them? How was there anything to decide in the first place?

Punk out again, Scottie: it's what you're good at!

I punked out? *Amazing. *You lied, got busted lying, continue to
justify and rationalize lying, and then like the punk you are,
you
talk ****.

Yup. Punked out... ...again.

Truly amazing. *From the cowardly bitch who punked out on
Whistler.

I knew you'd have a weasel -- like a second information tower.....

...and I was right!

You are insane. *Get help.

Can't deal with the questions, huh?

You are insane. *Get help.

And we're down to your cop out.

You said you that "LE didn't act on it" where "it" was information
regarding Richard Henry. How could you have said that if you didn't
contact them? Or were you lying then?

No, Baker, we are down to you rationalizing getting busted telling
another whopper of a lie, and avoiding taking responsibility for your
lies. *As usual. *A man would man up. *But everybody knows you are not
a man.
Go **** yourself, wack job.

What was the lie? The quote I gave?

You said that "LE decided not to act on it" where "it" was something you
acted on.

How you know of that decision and why were they even making a decision
in the first place if you hadn't contacted them?

You got busted in an outright lie. *Man up. *Stop making excuses.

What lie was that?

Amazing. When busted in an outright lie, ignore being caught and keep
playing the pppppuuuussssssyyyyyyy game.

Stop blaming me. *You lied. *You got caught. *For once in your
nutless, pussy life, act like a man.

Right after you tell me in straightforward language what you're claiming
I lied about...

Already have. You ignore being caught, As usual. Here is some
straightforward language. You are a pathological liar. You are a
stalking, craven coward. You are delusional, mentally ill asshole.
Man up, Baker. Stop playing games. Stop lying. Get help, and you
will need a lot of it.

In article
,
twobuddha wrote:

On May 11, 1:55*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*twobuddha wrote:
On May 11, 1:30*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 11, 10:08*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 8:40*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

om,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 5:17*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

s.co
m,

*twobuddha wrote:
On May 10, 4:17*pm, Alan Baker
wrote:
In article

grou
ps.c
om,

*twobuddha wrote:
And you've been laughed at by law
enforcement
in
Richard's
neck
of
the
woods, then.

Excuse me? *I have never contacted any
California
LE.
*You
just
got
busted making up another whopper of a lie,
Wack
Job.
*What
were
you
saying about credibility?

You really should remember your lies, Scottie.
You've
already
claimed
to
have contacted them but that they declined to
do
anything
about
it...

Busted again, you pathetic idiot. *You really
should
remember
your
lies. *I never claimed to have contacted
California
LE.
*Never
did.
Typical Alan Baker: when exposed as a liar, keep
lying.

Yes, Scottie, you did. Or don't you remember saying
this:

No, Baker, I didn't. *Once again, when caught in a
blatant,
obvious,
ridiculously transparent lie, you ignore being caught
and
continue to
make up even stranger rationalizations for your
lying.

'I acted on it. *LE decided not to. *Shame.
*Evidence
was
there,
wasn't
worth their time. *Little things like perverts,
child
molesters,
identity thefts aced me out. *If I had been a
woman,
they
probably
would have. *But as one investigator told me,
"We're
not
worried
about
you: you can take care of yourself if they ever
decide
to
escalate,
and those asshole ain't got the balls." '

How did LE decide "not to" and how did you know of
this
decision if
you
never contacted them?

Baker, you pathetic sick freak, you stated *I had
contacted
California
LE. *Then you offered this as proof when caught
lying.
*You
are
insane.

And it proves you did contact them. Otherwise:

1. How did you know what they decided to do?

2. Why were they deciding anything in the first place?

3. Or are you claiming that that wasn't an actual quote
from
you?
(Be
aware, I can produce the link if needed).

Since you punked out on answering my question the first
time
around, I
expect nothing more this time, but it's fun watching
you
splutter.

Baker, you deranged nutjob delusional dumb**** idiot, you
claimed
I
had contacted California LE. *I did not. *I never said I
did.

So then what law enforcement agency did you contact? You're
not
really
trying to get off on the semantic that it didn't happen to
be a
California agency, are you?

Baker, deal with getting busted lying. *Nothing semantic
about
it.
You lied. *Period. *Admit it. *Be a man.

Where was the lie?

You posted that you "acted on it" and that "LE decided not to".
You
couldn't have said either of those things if you were not in
contact
with law enforcement.

Apologize for lying. *Admit you lied. *That's what a man
would
do.
And that is why you are incapable of admitting to a lie.

How did you know what "LE decided not to" do if you weren't
in
contact
with them? How was there anything to decide in the first
place?

Punk out again, Scottie: it's what you're good at!

I punked out? *Amazing. *You lied, got busted lying, continue
to
justify and rationalize lying, and then like the punk you
are,
you
talk ****.

Yup. Punked out... ...again.

Truly amazing. *From the cowardly bitch who punked out on
Whistler.

I knew you'd have a weasel -- like a second information
tower....

...and I was right!

You are insane. *Get help.

Can't deal with the questions, huh?

You are insane. *Get help.

And we're down to your cop out.

You said you that "LE didn't act on it" where "it" was information
regarding Richard Henry. How could you have said that if you didn't
contact them? Or were you lying then?

No, Baker, we are down to you rationalizing getting busted telling
another whopper of a lie, and avoiding taking responsibility for your
lies. *As usual. *A man would man up. *But everybody knows you are
not
a man.
Go **** yourself, wack job.

What was the lie? The quote I gave?

You said that "LE decided not to act on it" where "it" was something
you
acted on.

How you know of that decision and why were they even making a decision
in the first place if you hadn't contacted them?

You got busted in an outright lie. *Man up. *Stop making excuses.

What lie was that?

Amazing. When busted in an outright lie, ignore being caught and keep
playing the pppppuuuussssssyyyyyyy game.

I haven't lied. You did claim to have contacted LE regarding Richard
Henry.


Stop blaming me. *You lied. *You got caught. *For once in your
nutless, pussy life, act like a man.

Right after you tell me in straightforward language what you're claiming
I lied about...

Already have. You ignore being caught, As usual. Here is some
straightforward language. You are a pathological liar. You are a
stalking, craven coward. You are delusional, mentally ill asshole.
Man up, Baker. Stop playing games. Stop lying. Get help, and you
will need a lot of it.

No, you haven't.

Say it straight, pussy-boi.

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