(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 19 Sep 2003 03:46:28 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Sep 2003 04:19:29 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 17 Sep 2003 04:20:35 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 16 Sep 2003 06:21:21 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
In this case, what matters is whether you can be guilty of neglect and
guilty of more than neglect at the same time. If someone claims they
were guilty of neglect and then also claims they were guilty of more
than neglect, that does not in any way mean they were lying when they
claimed they were guilty of neglect. You have yet to show anywhere I've
said that I was NOT guilty of neglect. THAT is what's necessary for you
to be correct in saying I was lying. If you can't do that (and you
haven't yet) then you owe me an apology.

Then why did you say this:

Ah, so here we have more proof that you think "neglect" means the same
thing at "forgot". I'll be nice to you today and teach you something...
Hint, they don't mean the same thing. In fact, they aren't even
related.

You don't have a point, do you. One has nothing to do with the other.
Forget and neglect don't mean the same thing. So what. That has
nothing to do with the fact that someone can be guilty of neglect and
more than neglect at the same time. You have yet to show anywhere that
I said I wasn't guilty of neglect. You have yet to show anywhere that I
lied long after you said you could. You still owe me an apology.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, you twit. I said you were a liar.
Why? Because you stated that you were "guilty of neglect". Then, when
I said something about it, you retorted with you simply forgot. And,

And that's where you're wrong. I NEVER said I simply forgot. More
proof that you're not smart enough to follow a simple conversation and
make up strawmen for you to argue against. Or is it your drunken stupor
causing you to imagine I said things that I never did?

as you have pointed out FOR me, "one has nothing to do with the
other". So, alas, you ARE a liar. Now, which one WAS the lie? Was it
the part where you said that you WERE guilty of neglect, or the part
where you said you "simply forgot"? Remember, now, you've just stated
AGAIN, they are two entirely different things.

First you have to show where I said I "simply forgot" to change it. If
you can't do that, then you defintely owe me an apology for calling me a
liar.

You idiot, you really DON'T get it, do you? I am VERY surprised, I had
given you way too much credit in my mind. I honestly thought you had
at least SOME sense, but alas, I see that is not true, you are dumber
than a chimp!!!

From the above, it's obvious that you can't show where I said I "simply
forgot" because if you could, you would have. Now you finally realize
in that shriveled vestigial brain of yours that you were wrong when you
called me a liar. But you're to much of a wimp to admit it. So instead
you write the meaningless crap above. What a dumb wimp you are.

Again, punk, if I'm such a "wimp", let's meet up. We can put your
Karate experience to the test, okay?

Well, at least you realize you're to stupid to engage verbally. And to
much of a baby to apologize when you know you should.

Steve

I guess you may have a point. I'm not intelligent enough to teach
someone as narrow minded as you, and as stupid as you. It's akin to
trying to teach plankton to recite the Gettysburg Address, utterly
impossible.

This has to be a record length of blasting each other. Congratulations!

On 22 Sep 2003 06:37:30 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 19 Sep 2003 03:46:28 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Sep 2003 04:19:29 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 17 Sep 2003 04:20:35 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 16 Sep 2003 06:21:21 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
In this case, what matters is whether you can be guilty of neglect and
guilty of more than neglect at the same time. If someone claims they
were guilty of neglect and then also claims they were guilty of more
than neglect, that does not in any way mean they were lying when they
claimed they were guilty of neglect. You have yet to show anywhere I've
said that I was NOT guilty of neglect. THAT is what's necessary for you
to be correct in saying I was lying. If you can't do that (and you
haven't yet) then you owe me an apology.

Then why did you say this:

Ah, so here we have more proof that you think "neglect" means the same
thing at "forgot". I'll be nice to you today and teach you something...
Hint, they don't mean the same thing. In fact, they aren't even
related.

You don't have a point, do you. One has nothing to do with the other.
Forget and neglect don't mean the same thing. So what. That has
nothing to do with the fact that someone can be guilty of neglect and
more than neglect at the same time. You have yet to show anywhere that
I said I wasn't guilty of neglect. You have yet to show anywhere that I
lied long after you said you could. You still owe me an apology.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, you twit. I said you were a liar.
Why? Because you stated that you were "guilty of neglect". Then, when
I said something about it, you retorted with you simply forgot. And,

And that's where you're wrong. I NEVER said I simply forgot. More
proof that you're not smart enough to follow a simple conversation and
make up strawmen for you to argue against. Or is it your drunken stupor
causing you to imagine I said things that I never did?

as you have pointed out FOR me, "one has nothing to do with the
other". So, alas, you ARE a liar. Now, which one WAS the lie? Was it
the part where you said that you WERE guilty of neglect, or the part
where you said you "simply forgot"? Remember, now, you've just stated
AGAIN, they are two entirely different things.

First you have to show where I said I "simply forgot" to change it. If
you can't do that, then you defintely owe me an apology for calling me a
liar.

You idiot, you really DON'T get it, do you? I am VERY surprised, I had
given you way too much credit in my mind. I honestly thought you had
at least SOME sense, but alas, I see that is not true, you are dumber
than a chimp!!!

From the above, it's obvious that you can't show where I said I "simply
forgot" because if you could, you would have. Now you finally realize
in that shriveled vestigial brain of yours that you were wrong when you
called me a liar. But you're to much of a wimp to admit it. So instead
you write the meaningless crap above. What a dumb wimp you are.

Again, punk, if I'm such a "wimp", let's meet up. We can put your
Karate experience to the test, okay?

Well, at least you realize you're to stupid to engage verbally. And to
much of a baby to apologize when you know you should.

I guess you may have a point. I'm not intelligent enough to teach
someone as narrow minded as you, and as stupid as you. It's akin to
trying to teach plankton to recite the Gettysburg Address, utterly
impossible.

You, TEACH?? That's a good joke. First you have to be able to learn
something in order to teach it. And you have shown you are utterly
incapable of learning.

Steve

Someone needs to call Guinness... I'm sure this thread sets a few records!


"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On 22 Sep 2003 06:37:30 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2003 03:46:28 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On 18 Sep 2003 04:19:29 -0700, (basskisser)
wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On 17 Sep 2003 04:20:35 -0700, (basskisser)
wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep 2003 06:21:21 -0700, (basskisser)
wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
In this case, what matters is whether you can be guilty of
neglect and
guilty of more than neglect at the same time. If someone
claims they
were guilty of neglect and then also claims they were
guilty of more
than neglect, that does not in any way mean they were lying
when they
claimed they were guilty of neglect. You have yet to show
anywhere I've
said that I was NOT guilty of neglect. THAT is what's
necessary for you
to be correct in saying I was lying. If you can't do that
(and you
haven't yet) then you owe me an apology.

Then why did you say this:

Ah, so here we have more proof that you think "neglect" means
the same
thing at "forgot". I'll be nice to you today and teach
you something...
Hint, they don't mean the same thing. In fact, they
aren't even
related.

You don't have a point, do you. One has nothing to do with
the other.
Forget and neglect don't mean the same thing. So what. That
has
nothing to do with the fact that someone can be guilty of
neglect and
more than neglect at the same time. You have yet to show
anywhere that
I said I wasn't guilty of neglect. You have yet to show
anywhere that I
lied long after you said you could. You still owe me an
apology.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, you twit. I said you were a
liar.
Why? Because you stated that you were "guilty of neglect". Then,
when
I said something about it, you retorted with you simply forgot.
And,

And that's where you're wrong. I NEVER said I simply forgot.
More
proof that you're not smart enough to follow a simple
conversation and
make up strawmen for you to argue against. Or is it your drunken
stupor
causing you to imagine I said things that I never did?

as you have pointed out FOR me, "one has nothing to do with the
other". So, alas, you ARE a liar. Now, which one WAS the lie?
Was it
the part where you said that you WERE guilty of neglect, or the
part
where you said you "simply forgot"? Remember, now, you've just
stated
AGAIN, they are two entirely different things.

First you have to show where I said I "simply forgot" to change
it. If
you can't do that, then you defintely owe me an apology for
calling me a
liar.

You idiot, you really DON'T get it, do you? I am VERY surprised, I
had
given you way too much credit in my mind. I honestly thought you
had
at least SOME sense, but alas, I see that is not true, you are
dumber
than a chimp!!!

From the above, it's obvious that you can't show where I said I
"simply
forgot" because if you could, you would have. Now you finally
realize
in that shriveled vestigial brain of yours that you were wrong when
you
called me a liar. But you're to much of a wimp to admit it. So
instead
you write the meaningless crap above. What a dumb wimp you are.

Again, punk, if I'm such a "wimp", let's meet up. We can put your
Karate experience to the test, okay?

Well, at least you realize you're to stupid to engage verbally. And to
much of a baby to apologize when you know you should.

I guess you may have a point. I'm not intelligent enough to teach
someone as narrow minded as you, and as stupid as you. It's akin to
trying to teach plankton to recite the Gettysburg Address, utterly
impossible.

You, TEACH?? That's a good joke. First you have to be able to learn
something in order to teach it. And you have shown you are utterly
incapable of learning.

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 22 Sep 2003 06:37:30 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 19 Sep 2003 03:46:28 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Sep 2003 04:19:29 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 17 Sep 2003 04:20:35 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 16 Sep 2003 06:21:21 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
In this case, what matters is whether you can be guilty of neglect and
guilty of more than neglect at the same time. If someone claims they
were guilty of neglect and then also claims they were guilty of more
than neglect, that does not in any way mean they were lying when they
claimed they were guilty of neglect. You have yet to show anywhere I've
said that I was NOT guilty of neglect. THAT is what's necessary for you
to be correct in saying I was lying. If you can't do that (and you
haven't yet) then you owe me an apology.

Then why did you say this:

Ah, so here we have more proof that you think "neglect" means the same
thing at "forgot". I'll be nice to you today and teach you something...
Hint, they don't mean the same thing. In fact, they aren't even
related.

You don't have a point, do you. One has nothing to do with the other.
Forget and neglect don't mean the same thing. So what. That has
nothing to do with the fact that someone can be guilty of neglect and
more than neglect at the same time. You have yet to show anywhere that
I said I wasn't guilty of neglect. You have yet to show anywhere that I
lied long after you said you could. You still owe me an apology.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, you twit. I said you were a liar.
Why? Because you stated that you were "guilty of neglect". Then, when
I said something about it, you retorted with you simply forgot. And,

And that's where you're wrong. I NEVER said I simply forgot. More
proof that you're not smart enough to follow a simple conversation and
make up strawmen for you to argue against. Or is it your drunken stupor
causing you to imagine I said things that I never did?

as you have pointed out FOR me, "one has nothing to do with the
other". So, alas, you ARE a liar. Now, which one WAS the lie? Was it
the part where you said that you WERE guilty of neglect, or the part
where you said you "simply forgot"? Remember, now, you've just stated
AGAIN, they are two entirely different things.

First you have to show where I said I "simply forgot" to change it. If
you can't do that, then you defintely owe me an apology for calling me a
liar.

You idiot, you really DON'T get it, do you? I am VERY surprised, I had
given you way too much credit in my mind. I honestly thought you had
at least SOME sense, but alas, I see that is not true, you are dumber
than a chimp!!!

From the above, it's obvious that you can't show where I said I "simply
forgot" because if you could, you would have. Now you finally realize
in that shriveled vestigial brain of yours that you were wrong when you
called me a liar. But you're to much of a wimp to admit it. So instead
you write the meaningless crap above. What a dumb wimp you are.

Again, punk, if I'm such a "wimp", let's meet up. We can put your
Karate experience to the test, okay?

Well, at least you realize you're to stupid to engage verbally. And to
much of a baby to apologize when you know you should.

I guess you may have a point. I'm not intelligent enough to teach
someone as narrow minded as you, and as stupid as you. It's akin to
trying to teach plankton to recite the Gettysburg Address, utterly
impossible.

You, TEACH?? That's a good joke. First you have to be able to learn
something in order to teach it. And you have shown you are utterly
incapable of learning.

Steve

This shows just how much you DON'T know. Let's see, I teach three
Karate classes a week. I assist one of my fellow engineers, who
teaches civil design courses at a local community college a few times
a month. I work with my daughter EVERY evening, she's a straight "A"
student.
What do you teach, outside of how to ACT like you are an expert in
EVERYTHING??

On 23 Sep 2003 04:28:36 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 22 Sep 2003 06:37:30 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 19 Sep 2003 03:46:28 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Sep 2003 04:19:29 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 17 Sep 2003 04:20:35 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 16 Sep 2003 06:21:21 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
In this case, what matters is whether you can be guilty of neglect and
guilty of more than neglect at the same time. If someone claims they
were guilty of neglect and then also claims they were guilty of more
than neglect, that does not in any way mean they were lying when they
claimed they were guilty of neglect. You have yet to show anywhere I've
said that I was NOT guilty of neglect. THAT is what's necessary for you
to be correct in saying I was lying. If you can't do that (and you
haven't yet) then you owe me an apology.

Then why did you say this:

Ah, so here we have more proof that you think "neglect" means the same
thing at "forgot". I'll be nice to you today and teach you something...
Hint, they don't mean the same thing. In fact, they aren't even
related.

You don't have a point, do you. One has nothing to do with the other.
Forget and neglect don't mean the same thing. So what. That has
nothing to do with the fact that someone can be guilty of neglect and
more than neglect at the same time. You have yet to show anywhere that
I said I wasn't guilty of neglect. You have yet to show anywhere that I
lied long after you said you could. You still owe me an apology.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, you twit. I said you were a liar.
Why? Because you stated that you were "guilty of neglect". Then, when
I said something about it, you retorted with you simply forgot. And,

And that's where you're wrong. I NEVER said I simply forgot. More
proof that you're not smart enough to follow a simple conversation and
make up strawmen for you to argue against. Or is it your drunken stupor
causing you to imagine I said things that I never did?

as you have pointed out FOR me, "one has nothing to do with the
other". So, alas, you ARE a liar. Now, which one WAS the lie? Was it
the part where you said that you WERE guilty of neglect, or the part
where you said you "simply forgot"? Remember, now, you've just stated
AGAIN, they are two entirely different things.

First you have to show where I said I "simply forgot" to change it. If
you can't do that, then you defintely owe me an apology for calling me a
liar.

You idiot, you really DON'T get it, do you? I am VERY surprised, I had
given you way too much credit in my mind. I honestly thought you had
at least SOME sense, but alas, I see that is not true, you are dumber
than a chimp!!!

From the above, it's obvious that you can't show where I said I "simply
forgot" because if you could, you would have. Now you finally realize
in that shriveled vestigial brain of yours that you were wrong when you
called me a liar. But you're to much of a wimp to admit it. So instead
you write the meaningless crap above. What a dumb wimp you are.

Again, punk, if I'm such a "wimp", let's meet up. We can put your
Karate experience to the test, okay?

Well, at least you realize you're to stupid to engage verbally. And to
much of a baby to apologize when you know you should.

I guess you may have a point. I'm not intelligent enough to teach
someone as narrow minded as you, and as stupid as you. It's akin to
trying to teach plankton to recite the Gettysburg Address, utterly
impossible.

You, TEACH?? That's a good joke. First you have to be able to learn
something in order to teach it. And you have shown you are utterly
incapable of learning.

This shows just how much you DON'T know. Let's see, I teach three
Karate classes a week. I assist one of my fellow engineers, who

Your students should get a refund based on what you've said here.

teaches civil design courses at a local community college a few times

Probably because you don't know enough about it to teach the course
yourself.

a month. I work with my daughter EVERY evening, she's a straight "A"
student.

We already know your daughter is smarter than you.

You obviously can't teach anything about engine design since you can't
even answer very simple questions about it. Examples: Do you think NONE
of the oil vapor that leaves the crankcase and gets routed to the intake
via the PCV valve and breather actually makes it to the intake? And if
you think some of it does make it to the intake, do you think NONE of it
gets burned?

You obviously can't teach honesty since you've been caught in a blatent
lie twice. Examples: Walt - the guy who claims not to read a 2 line
post before responding to it when the response is keyed to the post.

You obviously can't teach english since you don't know the meaning of
simple words. Example: neglect.

You obviously can't teach simple set theory. Example: you don't know
the meaning of subset and superset because don't think it's possible for
someone to be guilty of neglect and more than neglect at the same time.

You obviously can't teach even a rudimentary fluid dynamics course.
Example: you think the pressure at the top of a compressor's piston is
the same as in the tank when the compressor is filling the tank.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop for now.

Steve

Please keep quoting the entire text. I don't want to miss a thing when I check
in on it again next summer.

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On 23 Sep 2003 04:28:36 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:


(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...

On 22 Sep 2003 06:37:30 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:


(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...

On 19 Sep 2003 03:46:28 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:


(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...

On 18 Sep 2003 04:19:29 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:


(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...

On 17 Sep 2003 04:20:35 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:


(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...

On 16 Sep 2003 06:21:21 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:


(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message

In this case, what matters is whether you can be guilty of neglect and
guilty of more than neglect at the same time. If someone claims they
were guilty of neglect and then also claims they were guilty of more
than neglect, that does not in any way mean they were lying when they
claimed they were guilty of neglect. You have yet to show anywhere I've
said that I was NOT guilty of neglect. THAT is what's necessary for you
to be correct in saying I was lying. If you can't do that (and you
haven't yet) then you owe me an apology.

Then why did you say this:

Ah, so here we have more proof that you think "neglect" means the same

thing at "forgot". I'll be nice to you today and teach you something...
Hint, they don't mean the same thing. In fact, they aren't even
related.

You don't have a point, do you. One has nothing to do with the other.
Forget and neglect don't mean the same thing. So what. That has
nothing to do with the fact that someone can be guilty of neglect and
more than neglect at the same time. You have yet to show anywhere that
I said I wasn't guilty of neglect. You have yet to show anywhere that I
lied long after you said you could. You still owe me an apology.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, you twit. I said you were a liar.
Why? Because you stated that you were "guilty of neglect". Then, when
I said something about it, you retorted with you simply forgot. And,

And that's where you're wrong. I NEVER said I simply forgot. More
proof that you're not smart enough to follow a simple conversation and
make up strawmen for you to argue against. Or is it your drunken stupor
causing you to imagine I said things that I never did?


as you have pointed out FOR me, "one has nothing to do with the
other". So, alas, you ARE a liar. Now, which one WAS the lie? Was it
the part where you said that you WERE guilty of neglect, or the part
where you said you "simply forgot"? Remember, now, you've just stated
AGAIN, they are two entirely different things.

First you have to show where I said I "simply forgot" to change it. If
you can't do that, then you defintely owe me an apology for calling me a
liar.

You idiot, you really DON'T get it, do you? I am VERY surprised, I had
given you way too much credit in my mind. I honestly thought you had
at least SOME sense, but alas, I see that is not true, you are dumber
than a chimp!!!

From the above, it's obvious that you can't show where I said I "simply
forgot" because if you could, you would have. Now you finally realize
in that shriveled vestigial brain of yours that you were wrong when you
called me a liar. But you're to much of a wimp to admit it. So instead
you write the meaningless crap above. What a dumb wimp you are.

Again, punk, if I'm such a "wimp", let's meet up. We can put your
Karate experience to the test, okay?

Well, at least you realize you're to stupid to engage verbally. And to
much of a baby to apologize when you know you should.

I guess you may have a point. I'm not intelligent enough to teach
someone as narrow minded as you, and as stupid as you. It's akin to
trying to teach plankton to recite the Gettysburg Address, utterly
impossible.

You, TEACH?? That's a good joke. First you have to be able to learn
something in order to teach it. And you have shown you are utterly
incapable of learning.

This shows just how much you DON'T know. Let's see, I teach three
Karate classes a week. I assist one of my fellow engineers, who


Your students should get a refund based on what you've said here.


teaches civil design courses at a local community college a few times


Probably because you don't know enough about it to teach the course
yourself.


a month. I work with my daughter EVERY evening, she's a straight "A"
student.


We already know your daughter is smarter than you.

You obviously can't teach anything about engine design since you can't
even answer very simple questions about it. Examples: Do you think NONE
of the oil vapor that leaves the crankcase and gets routed to the intake
via the PCV valve and breather actually makes it to the intake? And if
you think some of it does make it to the intake, do you think NONE of it
gets burned?

You obviously can't teach honesty since you've been caught in a blatent
lie twice. Examples: Walt - the guy who claims not to read a 2 line
post before responding to it when the response is keyed to the post.

You obviously can't teach english since you don't know the meaning of
simple words. Example: neglect.

You obviously can't teach simple set theory. Example: you don't know
the meaning of subset and superset because don't think it's possible for
someone to be guilty of neglect and more than neglect at the same time.

You obviously can't teach even a rudimentary fluid dynamics course.
Example: you think the pressure at the top of a compressor's piston is
the same as in the tank when the compressor is filling the tank.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop for now.

Steve