From: cujo@petitmorte.net   
      
   nancygene.andjayme@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (NancyGene) wrote in   
   news:MbCcnfRW0-48KcT0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com:   
      
   >> Will-Dockery wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> NancyGene wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> George J. Dance wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> NancyGene wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> NancyGene wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted.  JLA   
   >>>>>>> Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> > Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I   
   >>>>>> > replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No, Cujo's first attempt to post the message with the headers   
   >>>>>>> was rejected by JLA Forums and didn't come through to the site.   
   >>>>>>> We don't know if it came through to any other sites, but we did   
   >>>>>>> not see it on JLA Forums.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison   
   >>>>>>> headers, has not been deleted.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> > Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a   
   >>>>>> > couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it   
   >>>>>> > to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the   
   >>>>>> > headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those  on   
   >>>>>> > Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the   
   >>>>>> > thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for   
   >>>>>> > themselves.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That was a subsequent post from Cujo.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums.  Please   
   >>>>> prove that it was, George Dunce.  Cujo explained why.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> > GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem   
   >>>> > first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll   
   >>>> > talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> No, we haven't "given up" the fact that we posted the Davis poem   
   >>> first.  How many times do we have to say and prove it to you?   
   >>>   
   >>> > Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread   
   >>> > has an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts   
   >>> > made in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the   
   >>> > program; that's shown by each post's own subject header, which   
   >>> > begins with "Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example,   
   >>> > if the subject of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it   
   >>> > (and the replies to them) would have the subject header "Re:   
   >>> > Christmas."   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> George Dunce, you are so computer literate, considering that you are   
   >> using a Commodore 64 with no speakers.   
   >>   
   >> > Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the   
   >> > subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again."   
   >> > That shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this   
   >> > thread./quote]   
   >>   
   >> Wrong, George Dunce!  It shows that "we" put in the "Re" because we   
   >> had the message that Cujo sent to us (that never made it to JLA   
   >> Forums).   
   >>   
   >> > It also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS OF   
   >> > EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by "Cujo"   
   >> > (Mr. Fries). That doesn't tell us the content of missing OP; but   
   >> > since the first post in the thread is a reply to a post by "Cujo"   
   >> > (the same one I replied to) it's reasonable to infer that the post   
   >> > being replied to is the missing OP./quote]   
   >> The first message is our post because Cujo sent us what he was trying   
   >> to post, which JLA Forums rejected.   
   >>   
   >> > We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts to   
   >> > JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't   
   >> > deleted here. /quote]   
   >> It never got "here."   
   >>   
   >> > Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA, which is why   
   >> > attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he replies to   
   >> > (since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently). Rather, since   
   >> > he posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he deleted his post   
   >> > from the entirety of Usenet after you replied to it, which caused   
   >> > it to disappear from JLA./quote]   
   >>   
   >> Nonsense.   
   >>   
   >> > Why would he do that? Because he didn't realize that you were just   
   >> > trolling - just claiming you'd posted first as a joke, to troll me   
   >> > - and took your claim seriously. In short, like Will, he got taken   
   >> > in by your troll. When he realized that he'd been trolled, he   
   >> > deleted the post, or got someone who actually knows how to moderate   
   >> > Usenet (perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for him. /quote]   
   >>   
   >> More Dance nonsense.  Cujo didn't delete his post from JLA Forums.   
   >> It was never posted on JLA Forums.  Whatever might have been deleted,   
   >> we don't know, but he didn't delete the original headers message.   
   >>   
   >> > I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling, and   
   >> > as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct about   
   >> > anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial reader   
   >> > of the thread.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > No, George Dance, you have based your argument on false information.   
   > WE posted the "Re:."  You should run your "facts" through your trusted   
   > thinker again.  Garbage in/garbage out.[/quote]   
   >   
   > You were responding to a post that wasn't there = deleted.   
   >   
   > Also, how do you know that the message was never posted on JLA Forums?   
   >   
   > How would you see if it was or wasn't?[/quote]   
   >   
   > Will Donkey, don't be dumb.   
      
   I don't believe he's capable of any intelligence.   
      
   > READ what we wrote above.  The answers are out there.   
      
   Douchebag Willie isn't very good at reading either. He only sees what he   
   wants to see.   
      
   --   
   "Post-editing someone's statement before replying to it is a sure sign   
   that you have already lost the argument." - Little Willie Douchebag gets   
   another asskicking from Pendragon   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)