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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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
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 <email@example.com>
The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"