[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:47:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:58:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > I don't believe my posts have been discourteous to Craig, but if
> > 
> > you lying piece of shit.
> I said you were a cad; but I think that's borne out given that you're
> calling me a "lying piece of shit".

no, telling the truth does not make someone a cad.  you ARE a lying piece of
shit, and you ARE a worthless low-life bag of pus.

> As I've pointed out, the surest proof that I'm accurate is every
> single message you've sent.  You prove you character each time; I
> don't need to do it for you.  Please, keep posting.  It only makes you
> look worse and worse.


your display of mock-innocence is very boring.  you're not even very good at

> > you know full well that you were the one who started throwing insults.
> Hrm; I said not that "you did it first", but simply that I haven't done it at
> all.  

then you are lying again.  but that is nothing new.

> But, as it happens, it was when you labelled a proposal as
> "unprincipled and unethical" that I first posted, commenting that I
> thought you were unprincipled, and in no position to make such
> criticisms.

obviously you can not see the difference between labelling a THING as
unprincipled and slandering a person as unprincipled.  

> So if that was an "insult", then well, your message was too.  But I
> don't think it's necessary to have some weird debate about who
> insulted who.  Your messages show your character, and your denials
> simply demonstrate the point all the more.

so it's somehow wrong to state things plainly and unambigiously, yet it's
virtuous to make insults while pretending innocence?

of course, a liar would hold that belief.  honesty is not your strong point.

> The really weird thing is your protestations that you don't read
> anything I write, 

again you lie.  i have never said that.  i have said that i do not want you
contacting me, and also that i will not give silent assent to your lies.

> combined with your hateful language against me, 

maybe if you weren't so hateful, nay despicable, i wouldn't be compelled to
refer to you so honestly.

> and your insistence that I shouldn't answer your attacks.  

look at *every* single instance where we have argued.  it is self-evident that
it is you smarmily attacking me, and then pretending to be outraged when i
respond.  sometimes you don't bother to throw the first insult yourself, you
leap at the opportunity presented when i respond to someone else's insulting or
moronic behaviour, with the same pretended outrage and mock-innocence - the
pattern is essentially the same.

in short, you look eagerly for opportunities to have a go at me, whereas i
would much prefer to just ignore you.  this is because you are an arsewipe.

finally, to understate things somewhat: it is obvious that i don't like you and
you don't like me.  why don't you just ignore me?  then you won't have to
expend the effort required to lie and i wont have to respond to your lying


-- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"

Reply to: