From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 26/4/05 9:28 AM, in article BE92E73A.147FD%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   "Snit"  wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE93B287.BF1A%wally@wally.world.net on 4/25/05 5:55 PM:   
   >   
   >>>>>>> I now consider any agreement made wrt a.f.m at an end .   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I do thank for for trying.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In what way do you think he tried?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In the obvious manner, he confined the conflict to this group, rather   
   >>>> than CSMA. Were there other ways in which you believe he tried?   
   >>>   
   >>> But he is admitting now that he will be heading back to CSMA   
   >>   
   >> I have never left there!   
   >   
   > You should work on finishing the whole sentence you are in reply to - your   
   > response might actually be appropriate if you were to do so!   
      
   That sentence of yours lost all credibility when you started it with another   
   of your lies, why should I treat it in any way?.   
      
   >>> to cause trouble there, though he does not word it that way.   
   >>   
   >> Then to say that I have admitted as much is a lie!   
   >> Is this an example of your 'mirror' analogy'? LOL   
   >   
   > Read your flame post that started this thread - you make it clear you will   
   > be heading back to CSMA to cause trouble... or do you want me to believe you   
   > will lie in AFM but not CSMA?   
      
   Oh yes!...very clear...   
      
   " I will direct any posts of mine 'designed' to flame to a.f.m, but I will   
   not consider any post a flame simply because it is directed at any   
   particular poster even though this poster indulges in behavior that does fit   
   the flame definition, i.e.....simply denying that which is obvious and   
   undeniable, such as proof, explanations, or examples.   
   I draw a distinction between flaming and simply denying reality, the latter   
   IMO should be condemned and be scrutinized by a wider audience."   
      
   The only way it can be clear to you is if you have every intention of   
   continuing to deny the reality of certain situations, I never doubted that   
   for a second!   
      
    >>>  Then again, until he   
   >>> does so, perhaps he is just trying to add to the trouble in AFM... hmmm...   
   >>> we shall have to see.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is like a kid next to a cookie jar: even if they avoid stealing a cookie   
   >>> for a few days, if they tell you they will do so soon,   
   >>   
   >> Or in your case if they don't tell you that, Simply lie and pretend that   
   >> they did! Then accuse them of stealing, don't worry about proof........'you'   
   >> never seem to need any!   
   >   
   > LOL... how quickly you forget:   
   >   
   > * My other comments about Elizabot's actions, according to Wally, are   
   >   not accurate; he has even gone so far as to claim I am lying -   
   >   though he has, of course, offered nothing to prove his accusations against   
   >   me on this.  Unlike me, who is honest when I can not provide public   
   >   support for my allegations, Wally refuses to admit to his lack of evidence   
   >   for his accusations.  Wally, it seems, fails to see the irony of his   
   >   actions (irony is an abstract concept...).   
      
   This was covered in  'Subject: Conclusions on the debate with Wally'   
   How quickly *you* forget! Or in your delusional state did you really think   
   it would go away if you paste that crap somewhere else?  hahahhaahhaha   
      
   " You need look no further than this post for Snits dishonesty!, It is a   
   fact   
   that Elizabot has admitted to downloading ONE image, not 'close to one' not   
   'nearly one' and not 'more or less than one' it is an undeniable fact that   
   the number in question is 'ONE' and yet what does Snit say?...   
      
   "Wally, Elizabot, and I (and others) agree that Elizabot took at least   
   one image"   
      
   That is dishonest! none of the other people mentioned above have agree to   
   the notion of "at least one image", I for example have stated multiple times   
   that I only agree to the 'ONE' image because Elizabot admits to it! Can he   
   show anyone agreeing to anything other than 'ONE' image? He has already   
   admitted that he cannot offer any proof at all for his accusations! And yet   
   he holds this up as an example of him being honest? LOL"   
      
   Have you always had this need to lie about what people *ACTUALLY* say?, have   
   you convinced yourself that people are that stupid that they wont notice?   
   Or is it that your lies appear so real to you that you can no longer tell   
   the difference?   
      
   > As stated, the irony of your comments goes *way* over your head.  :)   
      
   I do not equate your lies with irony!   
      
   > _________________________________________   
   > Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server   
   > More than 120,000 groups   
   > Unlimited download   
   > http://www.usenetzone.com to open account   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)