jps wrote:
In article .com,
says...
From October 2001:
I've shared that tale with the NG previously. So, one more time...
Excuse my ignorance but I don't understand your point in posting this...
jps
Then you must have missed Psuedo Skipper Cave Mann's latest mission in
his otherwise meaningless life.
He spends his days thinking of not-so-clever ways to continuously
restate that he was disgusted with my immediately transparent
hucksterism and dishonesty- qualities that he claims were oozing from
every pore during our first meeting in Seattle and our second meeting,
many months or maybe even a year later.
If I choose to respond, my choices are to either engage in a you
said/Did not, you said/ did not, you said/did not cycle jerk or simply
post the evidence that puts the LIAR's hat squarely on Cave Mann's
oh-so-deserving head. Yes, it's true that when asked "Were you lying
then, or lying now?"
he insists he was lying then- but the liar's hat remains in place even
so.
(If Cave Mann the Psuedo Skipper found me such a transparent "shyster",
it's amazing that he sought another meeting with me on his second
shopping trip.)
The plain truth of the matter is that Cave Mann felt the urge to wade
into the NG and begin attacking one of the "rad/libs", and invented
this pretense, based on two meetings of at least 5 years ago, as an
excuse. He has shown himself to be truly as pathetic as most people
consider him to be.
I'm willing to let most of his his racist remarks, his anti-semitic
remarks, his John Birch Society/ PNAC perspective on the world, and the
generally disruptive behavior of this wanna-be sal****er boater from
the heart of KS slide, but when he decides to launch a personal
campaign with me in the crosshairs of his flame thrower I have the
right to counter if I choose to.
I chose to counter with evidence that proves, in Cave Mann's own
unimpeachable words from the public record, that the dishonesty he is
claiming is my stock in trade is simply a projection of his own fatal
flaw.
It's a heck of a thing to stand up to your eyebrows in the stinking
excrement of bald-faced dishonesty and cry out, "Oh look! I think
so-and so might have stepped in some crap! Better check the bottom of
his shoes!"
Only a prick without a shred of conscience thinks there's a good answer
to the question, "were you lying then, or lying now?" He says he was
lying then. I know he's lying now. Oh well, at least he's consistent.