Kier wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:13:47 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:12:17 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>>> There is no Waterskidoo. It's Gary. So now you're sort of attacking me
>>>> and defending flatfish, but it's just because you haven't read enough
>>>> posts to know what I know for a fact.
>>>
>>> No, I'm not defending flatfish, and no, you don't know it for a fact.
>>> The most you've got is a strong suspicion.
>>>
>>> Ever though that seeing flatfish under every stone, like Reds under
>>> every bed, merely plays right into his hands?
>>>
>>
>> Well, flatbrain certainly is the one who is trying to be under every
>> stone. Look up the posts from "mr.macfeelme". They appeared in this group
>> immedeately before "flatfish" resurfaced.
>>
>> Same style. Same dishonesty. And same IP-address. All of them. And all of
>> flatfishs post.
>>
>> He *does* nymshift. A lot. And often enough, he slips and makes errors
>> which *prove* that he /again/ nymshifted.
>
> Which I've never denied happens. But my arguement is still the same.
> Seeing flatty under every stone merely plays into his hands. That's why I
> ignore, mostly, types like mr.macfeelme.
>
It helps a lot more if you ridicule flatfish for his need to nymshift again.
After all, if flatfish would have something important to say, he would
stick to *one* handle. Nymshifting only tells everyone that his "points"
are meaningless. *All* of them
Ignoring flatfish and not showing his repeated nymshifts only is playing
into his hands, as he can then (partially) successfully pretend that he has
a point
>>
>> "Waterskidoo", "Attila" and "Simon Lewis" are equally the same person.
>> Quite probably there are more nyms. I have better things to do than
>> checking them. I just take note of those which I happen to find "by
>> accident".
>>
>> And yes, those are /probably/ also flatfish nyms.
>
> The latter two, yes, I'd agree, are probably flatty - not waterskidoo.
Ah yes. "I don't want it to be - so it can't be". Look up the posts. compare
them. Compare the headers of those.
I use more than a dozen indicators. Not all of them have to match, but
enough must match over the course of several posts until I decide if a
poster is in reality flatfish. Enough of those indicators matched for all
three of them
> If there's really any proof, let's see it.
No. It would only help flatfish to change his style again.
And you would not accept any of it, as it is still no "proof"
Additionally, you have proven often enough to not listening to reason when
you accepted this dishonest swine Snot as worthy of "discussion". Lots of
people asked you to stop providing that twit a platform. You would have
none of it. You deemed that piece of pond scum "decent" enough
And no, I will not drop your "handling" of Snot. You have not changed your
attitude, so I see no reason to drop it
--
Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
|
|
