From: "bb" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 6:02 am

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:

So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of
Len's? Or
is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16
and #17?

Neither, but nice try.

Steve, you lied. The only question is which time?

The conversation with a former colleague of Len's?

The length of tenure on RRAP?

Or both.

Fess up.

Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My bust.

Well, well...it took you Quitesometime to fess up.

Now where is Len's apology?

Psycho Pstevie doesn't issue apologies.

The reason is simple: This "witness" (or "reference" or
whatever) does NOT exist. It's not possible for anyone
to "apologize" for someone that doesn't exist. Ergo,
Psycho Pstevie "does not need" to apologize.

You have to approach this denizen of Pstevieland as
you would a cryptologic attack. Work the puzzle and
try to think in terms of those who REFUSE to yield
to ANYONE. With years and years of experience (several
reading this newsgroup is more than adequate), it
becomes easier to do, but less easier to take. Toss
out logic, use great heaping shovelfulls of their
ego, pride, and sociopathy and it becomes clearer.

Pstevie IMAGINES this individual "exists" and,
furthermore, INSISTS he (or she) "knows all about
me through 'reports'" all of which don't exist.
By Pstevie "logic" all of it is "correct" even
though:

1. There's no evidence.

2. It's all hearsay, mostly hearing from one of
Pstevie's voices in his head talking to him.

3. He has "made promises to not reveal the identity."
THAT is the top-notch rationalization...used often
on computer-modem communications yet is totally
WORTHLESS in reality from the following:

A. It relies on some curious "honesty" and
"loyalty" factor which is supposed to be
followed by all newsgroup communicators
in which Pstevie self-describes himself
as "honest, loyal, trustworthy," etc.,
etc., etc. which has been shown to be
bunkum.

B. A non-existant person cannot be evidenciary
of anything but extreme imagination on the
part of the imaginator. No one else can
disprove something that doesn't exist but
the imaginator cannot prove the imaginary
to actually exist.

C. The excuse of existance is that the
imaginator expresses "outrage" that
anyone could imagine him telling a "lie."
He HAS told a LIE to begin with, so all
the following rationalization is nothing
but MORE LIES.

D. During the rationalization posting, the
imaginator will MISDIRECT the thread
hoping to take viewers' minds off his own
lies and put some blame on the person of
the challenger. That's a common ploy in
computer-modem communications, been around
since before BBSs on the old ARPANET. It
serves no argument but does take some of
the heat away from the lying imaginator.
AKA "smoke-screening" in trying to mask
any challenge to the LIE.

4. There can be an endless recursion back to (3)
depending on the intensity of the psychosis of
the LIAR. They profess "being wounded" by a
challenge and must "avenge" such "personal
insult" (of being called a liar in the first
place) by more and more and more misdirection
and outright name-calling against challengers.

Some years ago (about 1986 give or take) I logged
into a Bulletin Board System that specialized in
all sorts of paranormal subject, conspiracy theories
and "majic" (apparently a modern version of magic).
This was out of curiosity on how people behaved
when they thought they couldn't be found out. On
the subject that "The U.S. Air Force Academy in
Colorado teaches the existance of extra-terrestrial
beings and has textbooks on the subject," a person
made what I consider to be the ultimate
rationalization for the lack of evidence of that:

"After it was found out, the Air Force removed and
destroyed all the textbooks. Of course you can't
find any evidence of such books, they were all
confiscated and destroyed, but they did exist!"

So, despite NO evidence remaining, the claimant
remained adamant that such books DID exist. No one
can disprove it. But, given in such "outrage" of
being challenged (misdirection ploy), readers of
the message got an impression that they did. The
claimant could NOT prove his case no matter how he
tried...had to resort to emotional excuses and his
alleged "honesty" (claimant had not gone to the
USAF Academy but "knew someone who did").

The analogy applies directly to Robeson's claim of
having a "trustworthy reference" to my character
(as it was 34 years ago). He cannot prove this
"reference" exists yet demands he be "believed."
No one else can check up on this because nothing
but vague generalities about this invisible man
are presented.

This "fitrep" report-writer is either a LIE or he
might be some alien being from outer space. We
don't know about the latter so the former must be
a better bet. Psycho Pstevie told a LIE and just
tried to cover it up...again and again and again.
A clear and open role-model for today's Amateur
Extra class amateur radio licensee?

:-)