On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:47:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:58:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > I don't believe my posts have been discourteous to Craig, but if > > > > you lying piece of shit. > > I said you were a cad; but I think that's borne out given that you're > calling me a "lying piece of shit".
no, telling the truth does not make someone a cad. you ARE a lying piece of shit, and you ARE a worthless low-life bag of pus. > As I've pointed out, the surest proof that I'm accurate is every > single message you've sent. You prove you character each time; I > don't need to do it for you. Please, keep posting. It only makes you > look worse and worse. <yawn> your display of mock-innocence is very boring. you're not even very good at it. > > you know full well that you were the one who started throwing insults. > > Hrm; I said not that "you did it first", but simply that I haven't done it at > all. then you are lying again. but that is nothing new. > But, as it happens, it was when you labelled a proposal as > "unprincipled and unethical" that I first posted, commenting that I > thought you were unprincipled, and in no position to make such > criticisms. obviously you can not see the difference between labelling a THING as unprincipled and slandering a person as unprincipled. > So if that was an "insult", then well, your message was too. But I > don't think it's necessary to have some weird debate about who > insulted who. Your messages show your character, and your denials > simply demonstrate the point all the more. so it's somehow wrong to state things plainly and unambigiously, yet it's virtuous to make insults while pretending innocence? of course, a liar would hold that belief. honesty is not your strong point. > The really weird thing is your protestations that you don't read > anything I write, again you lie. i have never said that. i have said that i do not want you contacting me, and also that i will not give silent assent to your lies. > combined with your hateful language against me, maybe if you weren't so hateful, nay despicable, i wouldn't be compelled to refer to you so honestly. > and your insistence that I shouldn't answer your attacks. look at *every* single instance where we have argued. it is self-evident that it is you smarmily attacking me, and then pretending to be outraged when i respond. sometimes you don't bother to throw the first insult yourself, you leap at the opportunity presented when i respond to someone else's insulting or moronic behaviour, with the same pretended outrage and mock-innocence - the pattern is essentially the same. in short, you look eagerly for opportunities to have a go at me, whereas i would much prefer to just ignore you. this is because you are an arsewipe. finally, to understate things somewhat: it is obvious that i don't like you and you don't like me. why don't you just ignore me? then you won't have to expend the effort required to lie and i wont have to respond to your lying crap. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
