Get a Load of This - Schattie says he's been on PBS like AndrewMcLean

On Mar 29, 4:43*pm, twobuddha wrote:
snip

You ****ing idiot, you're groping your private parts now.

1.) Lieberman and you fought about you schleping K2 skis on RSA. After
he was diagnosed with ALS, you said you were glad he was going to die
and he was getting what he deserved. That's it, over, end of story,
you goddamn liar.

2.) I never said you were the e-mail bomber. I said, and see if you
can get this through that bent melon skull of yours, your response was
lethargic, non-caring. If I got fired, it was for the better good,
your depraved ego. You don't give a **** about anyone else, never
have. It's always about YOU. The jig is long since up, you're toast,
exposed, dog food.

Have a nice day, and don't choke on that Hoho.

"klaus" wrote in message


I didn't admit anything remotely like that either, I said (in the
same post) i didn't BELIEVE they were the same person. I did admit
to some uncertainty about that believe. How can youclaim I lie when
I clearly state I am expressing a personal belief? You don't
believe i believe what I say I believe? You're really grasping at
straws here Bert, you should bail before you make yourself look
even more ridiculous than Scott.

Babble rarely reads well.

I think Bert assumes that all his targeted readers are at the
intellectual level of Scott and Jeff, and writes to that level.

Is it even possible to write to a level above one's own? ?He's not that
much higher than S&J, but they're pretty low on the totem pole.

It sure is possible to write above your level, ****. All you have to
do is have more moral and ethical standards than Adolf Hitler.

HAHA... You lose...

In more ways than one. If I understand the grammer above I believe Scott has
claimed not only that he is writing above his level but also that his own
writing level is equivalent to that of AH. Not sure either of those is
anything to brag about.



http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Godwin's_Law

"There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that
thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost
whatever argument was in progress."

-klaus

Harry Weiner wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:55:53 -0700, Bert Hoff
wrote this crap:

What about my challenge?


So, how are yolur inflatable dolls getting along? They disappointed that
your inflatable sword won't?

Bert

I have no inflatable dolls, Berturde. I am a Hungarian warrior. My
honor and glory is sung throughout mead halls everywhere.

Will Scottee accept my challenge?


You keep on misspelling "whorer," Inflatable.

Bert

I shall note that you didn't answer my question.




My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

Why ask me? I don't speak for Scott.

Norm wrote:
"Bert Hoff" wrote in message

I believe that is what I just said. So you do understand. You've only
been pretending to be a simpleton.

That's so simple even you can grasp the concept.
So why are you having so much trouble with it?


Alan expressed his BELIEF, based on the FACT that none of you twits
were offing any evidence to the contrary, that the film didn't exist.
Whether the film exists or does not exist can not possibly change
whether what Alan said is the truth or not. The only thing which could
make what Alan said a Lie is if Alan said he did not believe it when in
fact at the time he said it he did actually believe it. I maintain Alan
is being overly generous to you by apologizing for holding an
(apparently) incorrect opinion.



No, he didn't state it as a BELIEF. He stated it as a cold, hard fact.

No he didn't. He stated it as a challenge to you, which you declined to
accept. His words, if I recall, were "Put up or shut up".
At the time all the available evidence pointed towards Alan being correct
in his opinion. At the time, given that you and your esteemed colleague
were steadfastly refusing to offer any shred of evidence, I agreed with
Alan's opinion. It took someone else here to find and provide the
information, you stonewalled.


You can start by getting your facts straight. "Put up or shut up" was in a
different post.

So your position is we should ignore context? Pretty thin ice there Bert.




A declarative statement is a declarative statement.

pigo wrote:
On Mar 27, 7:56 pm, "Norm" wrote:
"Bert Hoff" wrote in message news:3d-
I'm sure you'll stalk him and let him know.
Bert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How do you "stalk" someone that has a contact button on their
website?
I hope he enjoys the article and RSA !
Aside from being a liar, manipulative and just plain stoopid.
Notice how all of a sudden he's clamming up about his claim that you posed
as a Level III certified mountain guide.
You don't suppose that might be because it was asked, answered and explained
in full close to 2 weeks ago?

Do try to keep up Bert.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Explained" to everyone that needed it. A grand total of ONE, that
still doesn't get it!!!! OMG that's funny!

Yes, I saw your "I'm so stoopid" defense. It makes sense, coming from
your cocaine-riddled brain.

Too bad you waffle all over the place on that one ... telling the
difference betwen the two when it's convenient for you, and claiming you
think they're the same person when it suits your purposes.

Bert

pigo wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:52 pm, "Norm" wrote:
"Bert Hoff" wrote in message

Notice how all of a sudden he's clamming up about his claim that you
posed as a Level III certified mountain guide.
You don't suppose that might be because it was asked, answered and
explained in full close to 2 weeks ago?
Do try to keep up Bert.
You added your bit; when Pigo said that Jeff had claimed to have some sort
of counseling license you said that's exactly what happened ...
I said nothing of the sort. Jeff never claimed to have a counselling
license, Scott did. Or does, I assume.

even though you admitted later you knew Scott and Jeff were not the same
person.
You were lying.
I didn't admit anything remotely like that either, I said (in the same post)
i didn't BELIEVE they were the same person. I did admit to some uncertainty
about that believe.
How can youclaim I lie when I clearly state I am expressing a personal
belief? You don't believe i believe what I say I believe?
You're really grasping at straws here Bert, you should bail before you make
yourself look even more ridiculous than Scott.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's amazing isn't it? His "reasoning" has reached a new low. I'm just
proud to be a part of it.

Nice try but I think you can just give up now. Anyone that was unclear
about the subject would surely have grasped it by now. Those that
don't never will. And those that refuse to won't either.

Norm is just trying to have it both ways.

But he was unequivocably clear in his reply to your post. You claimed
that the same person boasted of being a counsellor and being a mountain
guide, and Norm said that was "exactly" what happened.

No doubt in his statement, even if he claims later that they aren't the
same person, then claims he doesn't know if they are the same person.

Bert

pigo wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:00 am, Bert Hoff wrote:
Dave Cartman wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hoff wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hoff wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hoff wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hoff wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hoff wrote:
pigo wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:23 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hoff wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hoff wrote:
Dave Stallard wrote:
twobuddha wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:04 pm, Clarencedarrow

wrote:
Schattie wrote
He told me to get lost? Not to my face. Ain't seen the
lying
freak
since he committed felonies over this stupid newsgroup.
Clue time, Vinnie. I've been on PBS, too. Didn't make my
dick
bigger. And unlike Andrew McLean, I'm not a pathological
liar
who
screwed over a friend, defamed him, participated in a
criminal
conspiracy of terrorism, lied to a cop and a judge.
He can ski whatever he likes and self promote all he wants:
I
know
what kind of man Andrew McLean is: an amoral asshole.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now go take your meds, Vinnie.
Hey, bubba. Your appetite for self humiliation knows no
bounds,
does
it?
Even if you are a tragic pathetic character, this is REALLY
funny.
Clue time, Vinnie.
Been interviewed for a couple documentaries. I was down at
the
local
PBS affiliate a couple months ago for the premier.
Vinnie, I know what happened. Bert has seen the film. Jeff
has
a
copy.
OK, what's the name of the film? Who produced and directed
it?
Where
and when has it aired? We'd all like to see it.
Dave
Yeah, sure. What you'd like to do is just to take potshots at
it.
I won't contribute to your mocking of this serious and
imporetant
documentary.
Bert
LOL
You think the documentary's feelings will be hurt?
Awwww...
No, I think you're totally insensitive to the survivors of
childhood
sexual abuse, who had the courage to tell their stories.
Bert
And how would they be impacted by us knowing what this alleged
documentary is supposed to be called?
Have you figured that one out?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four 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."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I highly doubt that trunky is in it.
I wonder how the producer would feel (if he is in it) to learn the
real story (ie the backlash story)?
Trunky? You mean the guy who posted that he was a Level III
certified
mountain guide?
Oh, you of the "I'm so stooid ..." defense.
"I'm so stoopid I think that Scott is Jeff Davis.
If so, then Scotty is that "stoopid" as well.
No. Scott does not think he's Jeff Davis.
He just thinks that Robert Thompson is stoopid enough to think so.
You got caught in another lie. Scott does not think he is Jeff Davis.
No, Bert, he doesn't.
He did however think that the message addressed to him was addressed to
him.
You lie a lot.
Bert
Your lies are really getting confusing ...
He did however think that the message addressed to him was addressed to
him.
Bert
I'm sorry, but why don't you try responding coherently and then I'll
reply.
You should learn to *write* coherently. All I did was say your writing
was confusing.
What does:
He did however think that the message addressed to him was
addressed to
him.
mean?
Bert
I'm sorry, but why don't you try responding coherently and then I'll
reply.
You're a sorry case, all right.
What is so hard to grasp?
What did you *mean* when you said:
He did however think that the message addressed to him was addressed
to him.
That's a simple, straightforward question.
The point -------YOU--------* are missing is that pigo believes that
Scott and Jeff are the same person. I don't know if anyone else thinks
that or not.
I hope that helps clear things up for you.
You should learn to follow along,if you're going to pretend to make
cogent comments on the discussion.

You didn't see my posts about Robert Thompson's "I'm so stoopid" defense?

He's so stoopid, with his brain fried by all that cocaine, that he
thinks Scott and Jeff are the same person ... and cannot comprehend that
anyone else thinks differently.

He's a limited thinker, like you ...

Bert- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There sure are many similarities in their postings. The obsession with
homosexuality, repetitiveness, lack of originality, insane desire for
approval, and especially what trunky can't be on his own (since we've
seen him ski) he has invented in his "jeff" persona. I'm not sure
whether or not they are *actually* the same person, but for all
intents and purposes they are to me for the purposes of this forum.

I can easily comprehend that others may not think so. And furthermore
would like to pull a barf here on that score. YOU JUST LIED WHEN YOU
SAID THAT I CANNOT.

hehehehe

Well, now waffle-brain Robert Thompson has taken all the positions on
the board. Now he says they may or may not be the same person.

Your earlier post was unequivocal. You stated as fact that the same
person claimed to be a registered counsellor and claimed to be a Level
III certified mountain guide.

NOw you admit you're not sure if they are the same person, then go on to
assert that they are. Whatever suits your purpose for the moment.

Or maybe your brain is so cocaine-riddled you can't keep track of what
you said ... or didn't say.

Bert

Clarencedarrow wrote:
On Mar 28, 8:39 pm, Clarencedarrow
wrote:
snip

By the way Davis, You might want to know a few other things about your
friend.

Your buddy has developed the attitude that no matter what he does or
says, you have to go down with the ship regardless of whether its
against the law, a violation of your marriage vows or will get you
fired. If you protest and speak up against his behavior, watch out.
You really wouldn't believe the private e-mails he started sending me,
nasteeeeeeee! In public he figured he had two alternatives to explain
my rejection of his behavior. 1.) he was truly a behemoth asswipe or
2.) I was insane. Guess which one he told-he says to this day that I
told him that. He even said on this newsgroup that I had been
institutionalized. He's a mean vicious liar and anyone that accepts
that behavior (i.e. you) is either incredibly stupid and/or vicious as
well. I never told him that and, personally, I will never let him get
away with it.

Now would you please go back and look up slander and libel and see
where his little diatribes fall in.

Over the years, we have all discovered that he is a blowhard bully. He
decided somewhere along the line that this news group belongs to him
and he cannot accept the fact people now just want him to leave. If
you haven't noticed, probably not because as we all know, you're
really stupid and not that much different, he keeps getting
progressively more outrageous until someone has had enough, so
childish is his craving of attention. People have tried to ignore him
but he keeps attacking until he finds someone that responds and then
the cycle starts all over again. It doesn't stop until his real life
episodes are re-documented and dragged through the mud again and again
and his public humiliation just is too great. Alas, this time I think
his sense of humiliation has just evaporated.

His behavior outside this newsgroup has been well-documented. For
chrissakes, how do you explain the crap he sells on e-bay. He actually
expects people to accept damaged beyond repair and not complain about
it. That is just plain thievery, pure and simple. Please explain it, I
want to hear your rationalization for stealing money from people.

Are we required to take his abuse, unethical behavior etc. etc. Well,
as far as I concerned, enough people refuse to. For those that want to
ignore it, it's their prerogative but it's still not going to prevent
them from being attacked.

He's a vicious joke of a human being-no if's and's or but's and, take
it from experience, the more you travel with him, you will become more
of a joke as well. Have a nice evening.

Well, listen to Vinnie distorting and twisting the facts.

I had made nothing but supportive posts to or about him. Then all of a
sudden he turned on me, in the most vicious manner ... when I hadn't
done a damn thing to him. Started making vile comments about my wife and
my step-son, and carried on from there.

You, insane? Didn't you tell him down at Mt. Hood that you had been
diagnosed as a schizophrenic, and had been involuntarily committed?

Too bad you made some bad decisions at the Maryland State Treasurer's
office, and had to leave the job.

Scott is so "bad," you claim, that your wife has threatened to divorce
you if you have anything to do with Scott. Your response? To come here
again, and continue to flame him some more.

Guess you don;t care that much about your relationship. Flaming away on
RSA is more important to you.

Does your wife even know you're still continuing to flame away here on RSA?

Bert

Clarencedarrow wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:43 pm, twobuddha wrote:
snip

You ****ing idiot, you're groping your private parts now.

1.) Lieberman and you fought about you schleping K2 skis on RSA. After
he was diagnosed with ALS, you said you were glad he was going to die
and he was getting what he deserved. That's it, over, end of story,
you goddamn liar.

2.) I never said you were the e-mail bomber. I said, and see if you
can get this through that bent melon skull of yours, your response was
lethargic, non-caring. If I got fired, it was for the better good,
your depraved ego. You don't give a **** about anyone else, never
have. It's always about YOU. The jig is long since up, you're toast,
exposed, dog food.

Have a nice day, and don't choke on that Hoho.

No, you falsely accused ME of e-mail bombing you!

You're a liar.

Bert

In article ,
Bert Hoff wrote:

Norm wrote:
"Bert Hoff" wrote in message

I believe that is what I just said. So you do understand. You've only
been pretending to be a simpleton.

That's so simple even you can grasp the concept.
So why are you having so much trouble with it?


Alan expressed his BELIEF, based on the FACT that none of you twits
were offing any evidence to the contrary, that the film didn't exist.
Whether the film exists or does not exist can not possibly change
whether what Alan said is the truth or not. The only thing which could
make what Alan said a Lie is if Alan said he did not believe it when in
fact at the time he said it he did actually believe it. I maintain Alan
is being overly generous to you by apologizing for holding an
(apparently) incorrect opinion.



No, he didn't state it as a BELIEF. He stated it as a cold, hard fact.

No he didn't. He stated it as a challenge to you, which you declined to
accept. His words, if I recall, were "Put up or shut up".
At the time all the available evidence pointed towards Alan being correct
in his opinion. At the time, given that you and your esteemed colleague
were steadfastly refusing to offer any shred of evidence, I agreed with
Alan's opinion. It took someone else here to find and provide the
information, you stonewalled.


You can start by getting your facts straight. "Put up or shut up" was in a
different post.

So your position is we should ignore context? Pretty thin ice there Bert.




A declarative statement is a declarative statement.

Right.

How do you feel about Scotty's declarative statement that I've been in
the care of mental health professionals?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four 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."