On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 02:00:26 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
> "Larry Qualig" <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>> (Lots of snippage....)
>>
>>
>>> Using the word 'retaliation' is hardly enough reason
>>> to assume he has some sort of problem.
>
> Oh god. Kier jumping to his masters defense again. Kier, did you not see
I'm doing nothing of the kind, you fucking liar. I'm sick and tired of
your lying crap about me.
> Roy suggest violence? Did you not see him throw his toys out of the cot
> and accuse people of "ad hominem" attacks. And yet its ok for him to do
> that very same thing? Come off it.
Did I say it was okay? No.
> >
>> I prefer to look at the sum of the parts instead of trying to
>> rationalize each individual item.
>>
>>
>>> First you need to prove he *is* overly obsessed.
>>
>
> The usual COLA defence : "prove it" - we could say "1+1=2" and someone
> would say "prove it".
You still haven't proved he is obsessed. Saying it is not proving it.
>
>> This is Usenet.... hardly anything can be "proved" but one can still
>> apply common sense and come to a reasonable conclusion.
>>
>
> And that, in this case, is even easier than usual.
>
>>
>>> > Roy did
>>> > make a statement which illustrated his belief that "Microsoft has
>>> > degraded to the point where it's akin to a 80-year-old pervert who uses
>>> > his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " This is what he thinks and
>>> > believes.
>
> Because he's an obsessed nutcase.
Again, prove that or shut it. A foolish or ill-expressed analogy
or statement is not proof of obsession.
>
> Just because someone thinks that, say, having sex with an underage child
> is "OK", it doesn't excuse them anything - it means they are the most
> dangerous offenders . They are unable to distinguish from right & wrong.
WTF? Where is this bullshit coming from?
>
>>
>>> Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
>>> means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
>>> common or garden bullshit, which is shovelled by the ton on both
>>> sindes in this group on a daily basis?
>>
>> So which is it? In another post you made an hour or so before this one
>> you excuse Roy twisting the truth as: (I'll quote you directly)
>>
>> <quote>
>> Roy is perhaps overly-enthusiastic in making his negative
>> interpretations
>> of much of the MS news, but is he lying? That would depend on whether
>> or
>> not he really believes what he writes, and I think he most probably
>> does.
>> </quote>
>
> He also tells lots of lies. Unknown to himself. But they are still lies
> : if Roy say "Red is green" and he *believes* that, he is *STILL* lying.
No, he is deluded or mistaken. Lying is telling a deliberate untruth,
knowing it to be an untruth.
>
>>
>> But now when his posts become really bizzare you excuse it because you
>> don't really think he believes it: (I'll quote you directly again)
>>
>> <quote>
>> Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
>> means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
>> common or garden bullshit...
>> </quote>
>>
>> You can't have it both ways. He either believes the tripe he posts or
>> he doesn't.
>>
>>
>>> Is that in fact what he does? Have you checked everything he's
>>> posted?
>
> God forbid.
Then how can you say you know all about it?
>
>>> Merely because you disagree with his interpretation of the items of news
>>> he's posted doesn't mean you are necessarily right.
>
> Roy is as often wrong as right : it really isnt subjective to any but
> the mopst airy fairy hippy. All "right & wrong" insociety is open to
> some debate.
Fine. Challenge his lies as you see them, then. I have no objection
whatsoever to you doing so, if you see what you believe is a lie.
>
>>
>> When he intentionally modified "quotes" or intentionally modifies the
>> headlines of what is supposedly "News" then it's not a matter of
>> disagreeing with his interpretation. It's a matter of taking a factual
>> quote/news-story and intentionally changing it to falsely mislead
>> people as to what the quote/article really says.
>
> Which is why so many people have killfiled his nonsense.
Again, how do you know that?
>
>>
>> No disagreement or "interpretation" is required. The quote and title of
>> the news story say one thing. Roy modifies/edits it to say something
>> completely different. In my book that makes him a liar. What would you
>> call this type of behaviour?
>
> Kier will go to extreme lengths to defend his master Roy.
You are a fucking liar, *again*.
>
>>
>>
>>> Roy may indeed be biased. Or simply misinformed, lazy, or ignorant. Or
>>> right.
>>
>> Again. His opinions are his own and I'll respect anyones opinions if
>> they are willing to back them reasonably. But I'm not talking about his
>> "opinions." I'm talking about the several instances where he
>> intentionally modifies a "quote" from an article or the "title" of a
>> news-story to something that was never written or said. This isn't his
>> opinion. This is lying.
>
> Yes. Absolutely.
>
>>
>>
>>> Anyhow, I'd prefer we dropped this line of discussion, as I'd prefer not
>>> to discuss Roy 'behind his back', so to speak.
>
> eh? This is usenet. Roy frequently savages people who he (mistakenly)
> labels "wintrolls".
So what? I'm not Roy.
--
Kier
|
|
