On Feb 6, 5:25�pm, Leo wrote:
On 5 Feb 2007 15:43:57 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 4, 9:21?am, Leo wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 1, wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 1, wrote:
Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?
I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. *orks
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *very time - without fail!
That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".
But you will not admit it.
Please demonstrate!
It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo".
K8MN wrote:
"Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?"
Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors).
And you ("Leo") replied:
"I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure."
Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some
would call that "lying", btw.
Some might call that "the lure".... 
Some might do that.
But, by definition, if a person intentionally makes an untrue
statement, intending to deceive, that person is telling a lie.
So what you are saying is that Len tells lies in order to "lure"
others.
Myself, I have never referred to anyone here as a liar, nor their
statements as lies. Mistakes or errors, yes, but not lies.
Then you wrote:
"Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *very time - without
fail!"
Note that last sentence:
"Every time - without fail!"
All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six
months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those
postings.
Factual errors according to whom?
According to objective reality.
Unsubstantiated.
NMP
With reference to what source?
Objective sources.
Unsubstantiated.
NMP
In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction?
Reality does that.
Unsubstantiated.
NMP
For example, suppose someone stated that the distance from Tokyo,
Japan, to Vladivostok, Russia, was 500 miles.
That statement could be checked against paper maps, atlases, online
mapping resources, etc.
It turns out that the actual distance between those cities is more
than 660 miles. Objective reality shows that the person who stated
"500 miles" made a factual error. A mistake.
See how easy that is? It's not a matter of belief or opinion, but of
objective reality.
Oversimplification.
How is that an oversimplification?
Is the distance from Tokyo, Japan to Vladivostok 500 miles or more
than 660 miles - or some other distance? In objective reality, it
cannot be both 500 miles and more than 660 miles at the same time.
You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you?
Not handy ;-)
I thought not! *Unsubstantiated.
NMP
It would save a
lot of time looking them all up again!
Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/
corrected here.
...if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it
would be appreciated! *pecifics would be nice, too.
"There's a flaw in your cunning plan, Baldrick!"
Although the number of Len's factual errors here is considerable, it
is by no means beyond my capabilities to provide a total, and
specifics.
Apparently, it is - as you have not done so.
That's incorrect.
The fact that I have not done something does not mean it is beyond my
capabilities.
I have not eaten any ice cream today, but it is not beyond my
capabilities to eat some before today ends.
However, that would be counterproductive.
It would be counterproductive to prove your point?
It would be counterproductive to give a total.
*Not much of a point, then.
Then why are you disputing it?
Because as soon as I did so, you would say that I had taken the lure
and verified your claim of "Every time - without fail!"
Only if you 'took the bait' on all of them - which is likely true, as
you have no examples which would prove otherwise.
I have examples.
If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the
past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that
I have proved my point?
IOW, you would say that once I provide details of a factual error made
by Len, it is no longer a factual error that I let pass, and instead
became one more "lure" that I went after.
Sounds like a guy who cannot offer any proof to the contrary to me. *
Nope.
It's someone who has seen and avoided the flaw in your cunning plan.
If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the
past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that
I have proved my point?
Of course some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's
kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you.
Evasive. *Still not a single example, so far!
If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the
past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that
I have proved my point?
So the only way for me to prove that your claim of "Every time -
without fail!" is false, is for me to leave at least some of Len's
factual errors alone. Which I have already done.
Not yet, you haven't. *
Yes, I have. I have left some of Len's factual errors uncorrected.
Doing that proves my point!
All you have done so far is avoid proving your
point!
NMP
Now of course someone else could come along and point out
one or more of Len's factual errors here, and then show that I had
left those error(s) alone.
??
Think about it.
But then you could claim that the reason I left those error(s) alone
was that I had not identified it/them as factual error(s) in the first
place.
??
And again, some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's
kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you.
...so there is no evidence to disprove my claim, is there?
Yes, there is.
All you have to do is look at Len's postings, note the factual errors,
and then look up which errors I have corrected and not corrected.
*I thought not.
You thought wrong.
NMP
Therefore, your claim of
"Every time - without fail!"
has already been demonstrated to be false.
Which it has.
Not.
NMP
Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement
is simply conjecture.
If I were to fall for your cunning plan, you would immediately
disqualify any specific example I would give, by employing the
discussion listed above.
If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the
past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that
I have proved my point?
...so there isn't any proff that I'm wrong, is there? *
There's plenty of proof. You're not willing to look at it.
Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did
challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here.
I'll bet he'd be crushed!
He certainly gets upset enough over them. A mature person would simply
accept the corrections and say thank you to the person who pointed out
the factual error.
LOL! *You're his playtoy!
Not at all.
I post a few words. He posts a bunch of paragraphs in response. I am
civilized and well behaved, he is out of control.
There's your demonstration.
Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over
the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate
your claim.
Yes, I have. To say more would be to fall victim to your cunning
plan.
So there really isn't any proof that I'm incorrect, is there?
Yes, there is.
I thought not (again!)
You thought wrong - (again)!
Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up
with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave
are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS
moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can.
Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim.
Maybe not for you. Others have a very different experience.
Please provise substantiation for this claim too!
I have a different experience.
Just a form of censorship
imposed on others by those who like censorship.
Not according to the definition of "censorship".
A moderator blocking posts from others because someone finds them
offensive isn't censorship? *
No, it's not. Check your dictionary.
LOL!
*moderated group
would not suit your purpose either!
Actually, it would.
Apparently not - you need RRAP!
Not really.
I participate in several moderated email reflectors. They work and are
lots of fun.
Those are reflectors, not groups.
There's no real difference to the users who want to have real
discussions.
Where else could you go but here
to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all
wrongs'?
"pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all wrongs'?"?
That's not me at all.
Sure doesn't play out that way on RRAP......LOL!
Promoting accuracy is pathological?
I'm simply correcting some of Len's errors and expressing an opinion.
Some of? *LOL!
Yes, some of. Len makes more errors than I correct.
That really bothers him.
Does it?
Yes.
*ROTFLMAO!
NMP
Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare
that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not
have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here?
nd
encourage everyone to join them?
I don't recall - who was that?
Selective memory - no wonder you can't recall responding to all of
Len's posts! *In fact, you replied to many of Mike's posts on this
subject. *LOL!
Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back!
Or maybe it didn't work.
They never do!
Moderated reflectors work. Why shouldn't moderated newsgroups? WHat's
the big difference?
You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever
wonder why?
Actually, I have left rrap for months at a time, except to post the
ARS license numbers. Check out google for my posting history.
Immaterial. *Everyone left here for months at a time due to the 'QRM'
from the resident psychos.
Incorrect. If *everyone* left rrap, there would have been no postings
to rrap at all.
And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either.
Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is
intentionally post misinformation?
Nope.
LOL!
Len doesn't always post misinformation. Some of what he writes is
actually true!
Correct. *(.....finally!)
And it is you, not I, that says his factual errors are intentional.
LOL!
Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not
come from Len himself?
Look it up.
It was a rhetorical question - he of course said that! *Don't you
remember?
I remember. You are the one who asked the question.
How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not
misinformation?
I presumed that Len told the truth.
Why?
Did I make a mistake in assuming that Len would tell the truth?
You start off most of your posts to Len with the words "You're
wrong....". *
That's incorrect, Leo....;-)
Why would you presume that he is stating fact this time?
Benefit of the doubt.
Is it wrong to assume that Len would tell the truth?
Are you stupid?
No, Leo.
Are *you* stupid?
Is that wrong?
That's nonsensical - based on your past history. *Magical, actually.
It's nonsensical/magical to assume Len would tell the truth?
Perhaps you are right, Leo. Based on *Len's* past history, it may
really *be* nonsensical to assume he is telling the truth.
That's magical!
You're saying it's magic if Len tells the truth here? That it is more
logical to think that Len is telling untruths than to think that he is
telling the truth?
Interesting.
Your conclusion is indeed magical. *
Which conclusion?
Are you trying to lure Len into one of his rants against you?
Nonsensical question. That's your job, not mine! *LOL!
Perhaps you and Len are the same person "Leo". There is no proof that
you are not.
So it's really a moot point, "Leo".
Perhaps....
We will see.
All we have seen so far is that you have nothing to offer to
substantiate your claims.
Who is "we"?
*As usual. *Your entire post above contains
no fact, no rebuttal, and no *proof - just conjecture and
unsubstantiated claims - and an expectation that others will do your
research for you.
If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the
past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that
I have proved my point?
Which, of course, will not ...
Not My Problem!