On 18 Oct 2005 08:44:16 -0700, wrote:


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.

The shame, Chuck, is that you are letting someone get to you, badly.

I have no idea if your nemesis is the real Skipper, or not. I'm leaning towards
'real' based on what many have posted. But, the important thing is that it
should make no difference to you *what* I believe about the matter.

You're being puppy-dogged just as Krause has done me since I first disagreed
with him. Finally, Krause began telling some horrendous lies, and I called him
on it, telling him he was a ****ing liar. Bad language, but true. Got it out of
my system.

Now he's kill filed. I see his posts when someone responds to him, usually as
they're telling him he's a (pick your favorite derogatory name).

I can see he hangs on to many of my posts, but you know what - it doesn't bother
me. It's funny. He is simply someone else begging for attention.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

The shame, Chuck, is that you are letting someone get to you, badly.

The shame is that I went out of my way to be courteous to this guy,
despite a long history of contentious conversations, and to treat him
very professionally when he sought my help. The shame is that five
years later he chooses to capitalize on his relatively unique position
("I've met this shyster in person!") to launch a campaign of flame
throwing and crap slinging based on some out-of-the blue accusations of
dishonest dealing. None of the many comments he posted to this same NG
following his trips to Seattle contained anything except glowing
remarks about his experiences when dealing with me.

Whether he was lying then or lying now doesn't really matter. His own
words prove that he is a far bigger liar than most people could ever
aspire to become.

wrote:

None of the many comments he posted to this same NG following his
trips to Seattle contained anything except glowing remarks about his
experiences when dealing with me...Whether he was lying then or lying
now doesn't really matter.

Yes, I did defend you from several NG contributors who had problems with
your honesty and integrity. I was wrong to have done that. A scoundrel
is a scoundrel.

So, tell us about those parties were you sat around with drinking buds
and the wife's telling tales about Skipper. That should provide further
insight into your exemplary character. We certainly wouldn't want you to
be misunderstood.

--
Skipper

wrote:
The shame, Chuck, is that you are letting someone get to you, badly.

The shame is that I went out of my way to be courteous to this guy,
despite a long history of contentious conversations, and to treat him
very professionally when he sought my help. The shame is that five
years later he chooses to capitalize on his relatively unique position
("I've met this shyster in person!") to launch a campaign of flame
throwing and crap slinging based on some out-of-the blue accusations of
dishonest dealing. None of the many comments he posted to this same NG
following his trips to Seattle contained anything except glowing
remarks about his experiences when dealing with me.

Whether he was lying then or lying now doesn't really matter. His own
words prove that he is a far bigger liar than most people could ever
aspire to become.

You can't be nice to life lying scumbags. It'll bite you in the ass
every time!