What's the matter with you idiots??

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:Nbskb.52826$La.33631@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:Xupkb.52818$La.24132@fed1read02...

Actually Bert Hoff has said that he fully supports Scott's
statements.

Proof?

tinyurl.com/rgs3

"I support all of my co-moderator's statements."



That link does not work.

Works for me.

Posted to rsa by Bert Hoff, 10-10-2003. Here is mo

So do you support your co-moderator's statement or not?

...

I support all of my co-moderator's statements.


And that's no proof that I fully support Scott's statements.

PUOSU.

So I should have known better than to believe something you posted?

There you are again, making up stuff and twisting things around!

Yup, I said I support all of my co-moderator's statements.

What does that have to do with Scott?!?

He's not a co-moderator, except in your deluded mind. That's something you
made up, to stir the pot and flame and troll some more.

You said:
Actually Bert Hoff has said that he fully supports Scott's
statements.

You lied. Again.

Ooh, clever. You really fooled us there. And the two of you both knew you
were being deceptive. Looks kind of like a _conspiracy_.

Actually, I didn't make it up. There were several posts floating around
with Scott described as your co-moderator. Since neither you nor he denied
it, I assumed you agreed. Another mistake on my part. Suffering from that
deception, your words "I support all of my co-moderator's statements" were
seen (at least by me) as total support for Scott, which apparently you are
not now willing to admit.

And when you answered thus, I was satisfied with your answer (not realizing
the deceptive nature of it) and stopped asking the questions. However,
since you have pointed out that no such support of Scott was intended by
your words, to clarify, I will ask them again:

Do you support Scott's statements, listed below (some of them are new since
the last quiz):

First, the total sleaze at http://tinyurl.com/k4gw. Tell us how you feel
about that.

Second, Scott's call to confront liars wherever they are found:

"I have a perfect right to confront criminals about their
stalking, lies, defamations, threats, and the like."

I read this as Scott granting authority to post on mensbbs whenever he (or
you) post lies about me or other rsa regulars. Oh, wait. Scott is NOT a
co-moderator of mensbbs. So your opinion is what matters. Do you agree
with Scott's statement or not?

Recently, we have questions about Scott's legal opinions. Do you agree that
a person can commit perjury without ever makinga a sworn statement or sworn
affidavit? Do you agree that a person can be guilty of stealing goods which
are presented to him as a gift?

The world wonders.

in article tsEkb.54535$La.21740@fed1read02, Richard Henry at
wrote on 10/19/03 3:43 PM:


"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:Nbskb.52826$La.33631@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:Xupkb.52818$La.24132@fed1read02...

Actually Bert Hoff has said that he fully supports Scott's
statements.

Proof?

tinyurl.com/rgs3

"I support all of my co-moderator's statements."



That link does not work.

Works for me.

Posted to rsa by Bert Hoff, 10-10-2003. Here is mo

So do you support your co-moderator's statement or not?

...

I support all of my co-moderator's statements.


And that's no proof that I fully support Scott's statements.

PUOSU.

So I should have known better than to believe something you posted?

There you are again, making up stuff and twisting things around!

Yup, I said I support all of my co-moderator's statements.

What does that have to do with Scott?!?

He's not a co-moderator, except in your deluded mind. That's something you
made up, to stir the pot and flame and troll some more.

You said:
Actually Bert Hoff has said that he fully supports Scott's
statements.

You lied. Again.

Ooh, clever. You really fooled us there. And the two of you both knew you
were being deceptive. Looks kind of like a _conspiracy_.

Wrong again, asshole. I've told you for months that you were lying. Now
you blame us when you get caught lying.

Actually, I didn't make it up. There were several posts floating around
with Scott described as your co-moderator.

None from Bert or me. Period.

Since neither you nor he denied
it, I assumed you agreed. Another mistake on my part.

I denied it on several occasions. Another lie on your part.

Suffering from that
deception, your words "I support all of my co-moderator's statements" were
seen (at least by me) as total support for Scott, which apparently you are
not now willing to admit.

You apparently aren't willing to admit to lying when caught lying.

And when you answered thus, I was satisfied with your answer (not realizing
the deceptive nature of it) and stopped asking the questions. However,
since you have pointed out that no such support of Scott was intended by
your words, to clarify, I will ask them again:

Fair is fair. Name and address, verifiable, and we talk.

Do you support Scott's statements, listed below (some of them are new since
the last quiz):
Fair is fair. Name and address, verifiable, and we talk.

First, the total sleaze at http://tinyurl.com/k4gw. Tell us how you feel
about that.

Do you support death threats, false allegations of molesting children, and
the other total sleaze posted here on a daily basis? Tell us how you feel
about that.
Fair is fair. Name and address, verifiable, and we talk.

Second, Scott's call to confront liars wherever they are found:

"I have a perfect right to confront criminals about their
stalking, lies, defamations, threats, and the like."

I do. Bert disagrees. Bert wins. You lose.
Fair is fair. Name and address, verifiable, and we talk.

I read this as Scott granting authority to post on mensbbs whenever he (or
you) post lies about me or other rsa regulars.

I've never posted a lie about you.

Oh, wait. Scott is NOT a
co-moderator of mensbbs. So your opinion is what matters. Do you agree
with Scott's statement or not?

Fair is fair. Name and address, verifiable, and we talk.

Recently, we have questions about Scott's legal opinions. Do you agree that
a person can commit perjury without ever makinga a sworn statement or sworn
affidavit? Do you agree that a person can be guilty of stealing goods which
are presented to him as a gift?

The world wonders.

The world wonders. Name and address, verifiable, and we talk.

Alan Baker wrote:
No. I've just been cleaning up my place and doing some home
renovations (as well as watching the Hockey Night in Canada
double-header! g).

You should be watching the Rugby World Cup. Canada has been doing OK. They
aren't in the game, like the US, but they are not disgracing themselves.
Wales only managed 41 points to Canada's 10, which isn't bad. (meanwhile,
Oz beat Romania 90 to 8, which I think was a bit unfair). All eyes are on
England after their win over the mighty South Africa. I'm going for Japan,
who are trying to be the giant-killers of the tournament.

ant

in article , ant at
wrote on 10/19/03 4:31 PM:

Alan Baker wrote:
No. I've just been cleaning up my place and doing some home
renovations (as well as watching the Hockey Night in Canada
double-header! g).

You should be watching the Rugby World Cup. Canada has been doing OK. They
aren't in the game, like the US, but they are not disgracing themselves.

Unlike Anthea Kerrison, when she was disgraced in a downhill race at
Whistler and committed felonies to get even.
Wales only managed 41 points to Canada's 10, which isn't bad.

Kerrison was about half a mile behind at the finish. Which was really bad.

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:tsEkb.54535$La.21740@fed1read02...

Ooh, clever. You really fooled us there. And the two of you both knew
you
were being deceptive. Looks kind of like a _conspiracy_.

Nope. Lying again. You lurk on men's a lot, and try a lot to post there.
You
know darn well who the co-moderator is ... you've exchanged enough posts
with him. And you hang out at men'senough to know that Scott isn't a
co-moderator.

I quoted some statements of Scott's and asked "do you support you
co-moderator's statements or not?" Your response was deliberately
deceptive.

And I don't know who your co-moderator is. (I recall several messages to
"Ishie", who I thought was in charge of the annexcafe abuse department, but
he apparently has no power whatsoever.) I won't call this a lie on your
part, just a mistake. See how it works? And Scott had me (and apparently
many others) convinced he is co-moderator. But he does have a habit of
exaggeration, doesn't he?

Do you support Scott's statements, listed below (some of them are new
since
the last quiz):

First, the total sleaze at http://tinyurl.com/k4gw. Tell us how you
feel
about that.

I already answered this for you, a couple of tiimes. I said that I didn't
know Speegle. I also said that the world was better off without lying,
manipulate, defaming SteveLieberman.

You don't have to know Mike Speegel to judge the content of Scott's posting
on the matter. In response to a solemn announcement of Mike's death, Scott
responded with gleeful obscenites. Let me make it simple for you: do you or
do you not agree that it is appropriate for an honorable man to make
disparaging remarks about a defenseless dead man, and to mock his family?

You chose not to reply, and now you pretend that I didn't answer.

See above. You still have not answered.

Second, Scott's call to confront liars wherever they are found:

"I have a perfect right to confront criminals about their
stalking, lies, defamations, threats, and the like."

Scott has already said a couple of times that I disagreed, and pull his
posts on men's to this effect.

Good for you. Is that why there are so few posts to mensbbs these days? I
don't know if you missed it, but Scott characterized it as "dead" just
today.

I read this as Scott granting authority to post on mensbbs whenever he
(or
you) post lies about me or other rsa regulars. Oh, wait. Scott is NOT
a
co-moderator of mensbbs. So your opinion is what matters. Do you agree
with Scott's statement or not?

Recently, we have questions about Scott's legal opinions. Do you agree
that
a person can commit perjury without ever makinga a sworn statement or
sworn
affidavit? Do you agree that a person can be guilty of stealing goods
which
are presented to him as a gift?

You're being manipulative again, just like that ass Alan Baker.

Those are *not* Scott's legal opinions. Those are Ass Baker's statements.

They are certainly Scott's statements. On numerous occasions he has accused
people of perjury when they have never made any sworn statements. Do you
need a list? Google is powerful. Further, to set the level of his
credibility in the accusing game, he has accused me for years of being a
member of a criminal conspiracy, the other supposed members of which I have
never met and would not recognize on the street.

But once again you're avoiding the main issue. You lied when you said that
I
had posted that I agreed with everything Scott posted,

No, as I have explained, and all the world minus two understands, I was
taken in by your manipulative deception.

in article kYGkb.55198$La.23412@fed1read02, Richard Henry at
wrote on 10/19/03 6:34 PM:


"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:tsEkb.54535$La.21740@fed1read02...

Ooh, clever. You really fooled us there. And the two of you both knew
you
were being deceptive. Looks kind of like a _conspiracy_.

Nope. Lying again. You lurk on men's a lot, and try a lot to post there.
You
know darn well who the co-moderator is ... you've exchanged enough posts
with him. And you hang out at men'senough to know that Scott isn't a
co-moderator.

I quoted some statements of Scott's and asked "do you support you
co-moderator's statements or not?" Your response was deliberately
deceptive.

Caught lying and you blame the victims of your lies. What an asshole!
Truly a pathological liar.

And I don't know who your co-moderator is.

Bull****.

(I recall several messages to
"Ishie", who I thought was in charge of the annexcafe abuse department, but
he apparently has no power whatsoever.) I won't call this a lie on your
part, just a mistake. See how it works? And Scott had me (and apparently
many others) convinced he is co-moderator. But he does have a habit of
exaggeration, doesn't he?

You have a habit of lying your ass off, since I've NEVER made that claim and
I ahve clearly stated on several occasions that I have no connection to the
moderator team.

Do you support Scott's statements, listed below (some of them are new
since
the last quiz):

First, the total sleaze at http://tinyurl.com/k4gw. Tell us how you
feel
about that.

I already answered this for you, a couple of tiimes. I said that I didn't
know Speegle. I also said that the world was better off without lying,
manipulate, defaming SteveLieberman.

You don't have to know Mike Speegel to judge the content of Scott's posting
on the matter.

I knew Mike Speegle. Mike Speegle was a pathological liar who participated
in a criminal conspiracy of harassment and threats.

In response to a solemn announcement of Mike's death, Scott
responded with gleeful obscenites.

You really are a vile liar. What utter bull****? Hey, asshole? If you
were offended so much, why didn't you speak up when all the horrible remarks
were made following my brother's death?

Let me make it simple for you: do you or
do you not agree that it is appropriate for an honorable man to make
disparaging remarks about a defenseless dead man, and to mock his family?

Let me make it simple for you: you lie. Speegle is dead, why does he need
a defense? And giving my condolences to the family for having such an
asshole for a father is not mocking. Lie, lie, lie.

You chose not to reply, and now you pretend that I didn't answer.

See above. You still have not answered.

Simple. Name. Address. Verifiable. Asshole.

You're being manipulative again, just like that ass Alan Baker.

Those are *not* Scott's legal opinions. Those are Ass Baker's statements.

They are certainly Scott's statements. On numerous occasions he has accused
people of perjury when they have never made any sworn statements.

They lied in court. Perjury. Check the dictionary, asshole.

Do you
need a list?

Please. We would love a list of all the assholes who lied to the cops and a
judge. You've got it, go for it.


Google is powerful. Further, to set the level of his
credibility in the accusing game, he has accused me for years of being a
member of a criminal conspiracy, the other supposed members of which I have
never met and would not recognize on the street.

Bull****. What a pathological liar!

But once again you're avoiding the main issue. You lied when you said that
I
had posted that I agreed with everything Scott posted,

No, as I have explained, and all the world minus two understands, I was
taken in by your manipulative deception.

Wrong again. You lied. You got caught lying. You keep lying to cover up
getting caught lying. Typical pathological liar behavior.

In article ,
"Bert Hoff" wrote:

"scottabe" wrote in message
...
in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/18/03 9:24 PM:

When I do post a link, you ignore it.
So get ****ed.
It happened.
Keep lying like the psychopath you are.


He does that a lot! It's part of his flaming campaign.

I ignore him, like I ignore the other flaming asses like Maverick, Olaf,
Sue, Sven Golly and the other worthless yoyos only here to flame.

He posted to me asking for proof that Horvath had accused me of child
molestation and said that I had been arrested. He's seen the proof before,
stuff like:

On what do you base your statement that I've seen the proof before?

You certainly have never presented any before this.

But I'll go on the record as saying that it's wrong for people to make
such accusations.

===============
From: Hollywood Horvath
Newsgroups: rec.skiing.alpine
Subject: Flamers go home!
Date: 6 Jan 2001 02:07:15 GMT
Organization: Dogs Playing Poker
Lines: 39
Message-ID:
References:


NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.244.73.185
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1PE (Windows; I; 16bit)




And I suppose you tried to issue a cancel just before your arrest as a
child molester?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:kYGkb.55198$La.23412@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...


And I don't know who your co-moderator is. (I recall several messages to
"Ishie", who I thought was in charge of the annexcafe abuse department,
but
he apparently has no power whatsoever.) I won't call this a lie on your
part, just a mistake. See how it works? And Scott had me (and apparently
many others) convinced he is co-moderator. But he does have a habit of
exaggeration, doesn't he?

I posted on the 11th that Scott is not a co-moderator. Scott has posted
several times before the 18th that he is not a co-moderator. Then on the
18th you posted that I had


Do you support Scott's statements, listed below (some of them are new
since
the last quiz):

First, the total sleaze at http://tinyurl.com/k4gw. Tell us how you
feel
about that.

I already answered this for you, a couple of tiimes. I said that I
didn't
know Speegle. I also said that the world was better off without lying,
manipulate, defaming SteveLieberman.

You don't have to know Mike Speegel to judge the content of Scott's
posting
on the matter. In response to a solemn announcement of Mike's death,
Scott
responded with gleeful obscenites. Let me make it simple for you: do you
or
do you not agree that it is appropriate for an honorable man to make
disparaging remarks about a defenseless dead man, and to mock his family?

You chose not to reply, and now you pretend that I didn't answer.

See above. You still have not answered.

I answered several times. And yes, the world is a better place without
lying, deceitful, defaming Steve Lieberman.


Second, Scott's call to confront liars wherever they are found:

"I have a perfect right to confront criminals about their
stalking, lies, defamations, threats, and the like."

Scott has already said a couple of times that I disagreed, and pull his
posts on men's to this effect.

Good for you. Is that why there are so few posts to mensbbs these days?
I
don't know if you missed it, but Scott characterized it as "dead" just
today.

I read this as Scott granting authority to post on mensbbs whenever he
(or
you) post lies about me or other rsa regulars. Oh, wait. Scott is
NOT
a
co-moderator of mensbbs. So your opinion is what matters. Do you
agree
with Scott's statement or not?

Recently, we have questions about Scott's legal opinions. Do you
agree
that
a person can commit perjury without ever makinga a sworn statement or
sworn
affidavit? Do you agree that a person can be guilty of stealing goods
which
are presented to him as a gift?

You're being manipulative again, just like that ass Alan Baker.

Those are *not* Scott's legal opinions. Those are Ass Baker's
statements.

They are certainly Scott's statements.

Let me reffresh your recollection.
====================
Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.t elusplane
t.net!newsfeed.telus.net!clgrps13.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alan Baker
Newsgroups: rec.skiing.alpine
Subject: What's the matter with you idiots??
Organization: bakerMEDIA
References:












Iomkb.52782$La.11992@fed1read02




User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.3b1 (PPC Mac OS X)
Message-ID:
Lines: 65
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:26:43 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.6.237.45
X-Trace: clgrps13 1066537603 207.6.237.45 (Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:26:43 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:26:43 MDT
Xref: uni-berlin.de rec.skiing.alpine:284169

In article ,
scottabe wrote:
....
You claim that someone can commit "perjury" when not under oath, and
commit a "theft" when *given* something.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
===================

That's Alan's post, not Scott's statement.

But once again you're avoiding the main issue. You lied when you said
that
I
had posted that I agreed with everything Scott posted,

No, as I have explained, and all the world minus two understands, I was
taken in by your manipulative deception.

More lies!

It was on Oct. 18th that you wrote:
"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:GRkkb.52461$La.9159@fed1read02...
Actually Bert Hoff has said that he fully supports Scott's statements.

Scott had pointed out several times before then that he is not a
co-moderator on men's. I posted on the 10th that no men's co-moderator has
posted here, and VernDave posted on the 11th:
"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.

You knew damn well, when you posted that on the 18th, that Scott was not a
co-moderator.

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?

The world wonders ...

Bert

In article ,
"Bert Hoff" wrote:

"scottabe" wrote in message
...
in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/18/03 9:26 PM:

You claim that someone can commit "perjury" when not under oath, and
commit a "theft" when *given* something.

I think you need to examine your own relationship to reality a little
more closely before you go calling others "delusional". g

You are insane. Get help.


He's ignoring the evidence, already posted, that Hobbs was under oath when
he made those false statements under penalty of perjury in that court
document.

What evidence?

Point me to a post. You *do* know how to use google, right?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article ,
scottabe wrote:

in article , ant at
wrote on 10/19/03 4:31 PM:

Alan Baker wrote:
No. I've just been cleaning up my place and doing some home
renovations (as well as watching the Hockey Night in Canada
double-header! g).

You should be watching the Rugby World Cup. Canada has been doing OK. They
aren't in the game, like the US, but they are not disgracing themselves.

Unlike Anthea Kerrison, when she was disgraced in a downhill race at
Whistler and committed felonies to get even.
Wales only managed 41 points to Canada's 10, which isn't bad.

Kerrison was about half a mile behind at the finish. Which was really bad.


Yeah. Flab can run out faster on a cruiser. Very impressive.

Wanna race me in the gates? g

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."