On Nov 13, 10:42*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:09:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 6, 6:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:27:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 5, 9:57 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Nov 1, 4:49 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On 29 Okt., 23:03, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 24, 9:36 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 24, 12:36 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> So far it appears clear that he is. Though Goo tried to wuss it off as
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Slater forging something, it seems Slater copied Goo's original post which Goo
> >> >> >> >> >> >> later removed, and Slater presented again much to the Goober's sorrow. It seems
> >> >> >> >> >> >> unlikely that Goo it telling the truth about Slater forging anything considering
> >> >> >> >> >> >> the fact that Goo has lied about several other little things regarding the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> topic. Why would Goo lie about little things if the big thing were not itself a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >It's completely obvious that the post by Slater is a forgery.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> If so then why does Goo lie about little things if the big thing is not
> >> >> >> >> >> itself a lie he thinks the little lies somehow support?
>
> >> >> >> >> >What has he lied about?
>
> >> >> >> >> For one thing Goo lied that I told you I knew Slater forged it, when of
> >> >> >> >> course I still don't know that and in fact it's looking more and more like he
> >> >> >> >> didn't as time goes along. If you're going to try to help the Goober lie about
> >> >> >> >> this (imo of course because of your admiration for him) then you need to present
> >> >> >> >> the evidence for it that Goo has been completely unable to attempt presenting.
> >> >> >> >> What Goo's trying to do is wuss away from it for however long he waits, and then
> >> >> >> >> he'll begin lying that it's already been presented and hilariously suggest that
> >> >> >> >> we go back and try to find it for him. Why do you want to support Goo's lie
> >> >> >> >> about this particular thing anyway, do you know?
>
> >> >> >> >I don`t wish to support anything Ball has said. I simply asked you a
> >> >> >> >question.
>
> >> >> >> You questioned him about it before, which of course was/is a surprise to me.
> >> >> >> Maybe he scolded you for it through email?
>
> >> >> >Of course not;
>
> >> >> Of course that's what you would say if he did, and we know it.
>
> >> >Why do you suppose that would be?
>
> >> Because you wouldn't want me to think you're both on the same team as I do,
> >> and that you sometimes discuss things through email.
>
> >If Ball took it into his head to email me for whatever reason, that
> >would not mean that "we sometimes discuss things through email",
>
> * * It seems most likely that you do though, from my pov.
>

Your point of view lacks rational foundation.

Ball and I have never had any email exchanges, and you have no good
reason for thinking otherwise.

> >unless I chose to reply to him, and it would not mean that I have any
> >motivation to conceal the fact from you.
>
> * * From my position you both appear to be eliminationists, but Goo is lying
> about it and attempting very poorly to pretend to be a misnomer opponent instead
> of what he actually is. However, his attempt is so very pathetic that from my
> pov Goo clearly appears to be a misnomer supporter who is lying about it. You
> appear to be one who is honest about it to whatever degree, but you're not
> honest enough to admit you and the Goober are on the same side and working
> together. Doing that would work against the whole idea, and you would never do
> it unless possibly at some point you become an AW supporter INSTEAD OF an
> eliminationist and then you and Goo would be on opposing sides and you would
> then have reason to feel good about exposing Goo, but so far you don't.
>

You've lost touch with reality.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >don't be stupid.
>
> >> >> LOL...it would be stupid if I didn't take that possibility into
> >> >> consideration since from my pov it seems as or more likely than not..
>
> >> >> >> He also lied that he hasn't been
> >> >> >> asked about his ****ing in the past.
>
> >> >> >Did he; where did he say that?
>
> >> >> He lied about it and Ron pointed out that he was lying. Do you want to think
> >> >> he's too honest to lie about that or what?
>
> >> >> >> He also lied that it didn't take him a
> >> >> >> while to come up with his story about Slater. So it seems likely enough he's
> >> >> >> lying about the cats too since he's lying about everything else.
>
> >> >> >May this belief of yours bring you joy.
>
> >> >> Goo's the one creating the impression that he lied about the cats by lying
> >> >> about other things. I'm just going by the Goober's lies, and now also the things
> >> >> you apparently don't want to believe your hero (Goo) is lying about..
>
> >> >And you find the issue interesting?
>
> >> I was curious about what I remembered to begin with, and now I'm curious
> >> about why Goo lied about some of the things he lied about. Why make up
> >> unecessary lies about things that don't really matter if he's not lying about
> >> the main issue?
>
> >So what you're saying is that you think that Ball probably
> >deliberately ****ed on his floor and then posted to usenet about it?
>
> * * If he did the ****ing he was probably so wasted when he did it the first few
> times that he didn't realise what he was doing, and later figured it out but
> kept doing it since it had already been done several times.... Then he got in
> the habit of it for a while until one day the smell got so bad that he decided
> to finally quit doing it, and then later found out how much trouble he set
> himself up for trying to get it to quit stinking. It makes more sense than that
> cats had done it years ago or whatever and Goo just noticed it one day after
> having lived there for however long. We know Goo lies about his own quotes as or
> more often than not...at least I'm aware of it even if you honestly aren't. We
> know Goo lied about it not taking a while for him to respond, Goo lied about
> having been asked about the issue in the past, and Goo lied about me having told
> you I knew Slater forged what he presented. Why would Goo lie about those things
> if he's not lying about the cats? Why???

First of all, I don't really know that these assertions which you
claim that Ball made were lies, or even factually mistaken. I would
have to look at the details of what he actually wrote and what the
evidence actually says about whether what he said was true. Even if it
was not true then it is still a further step to say that he was
deliberately lying. And, in any case, even if he did lie about some
things for whatever reason (and that may very well be), it's still no
especially good reason to conclude that he was lying when he said that
the original post he made was about cat urine and Slater later
deliberately mangled it. There are really no good grounds for thinking
that he is lying about that. The evidence in favour of what he says on
this issue is pretty strong.

You are welcome to believe otherwise if you want to, although your
views strike me as irrational. It's a pretty silly topic of
conversation, really. What's the point in talking about it?