| Michael Baldwin Bruce 2004-10-14, 3:59 pm |
| bruce aka tholen@antispam.ham wrote in message news:<Rpfbd.2439$Kl3.1211@twister.socal.rr.com>...[color=darkred]
> Well, grantco is now harassing me in two different newsgroups on the
> same day, with as many as four postings totalling over 1800 lines.
> Clearly his emotional need to antagonize someone has gotten worse.
> Time to use digest format in the latest newsgroup to suffer from his
> hypocrisy.
>
> grantco writes:
>
> 1755> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1755> What implication or inference, Tholen? How am I reading at all without
> 1755> "seeing" Tholen?
>
> 1755> Classic evasion, Tholen...
>
> 1755> Hardly.
>
> 1755> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1755> Who allows you to "officially" name what I do? You erroneously
> 1755> presupposed any hallucination involved and brought up the "topic" of
> 1755> it yourself, Hypocrite.
>
> 1755> Another classic evasion from Tholen.
>
> 1755> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1755> Not surprising.
>
> 1755> Just a fact, Tholen.
>
> 1755> Just a fact, Tholen.
>
> 1755> You're erroneously presupposing that I was discussing a "recent
> 1755> posting not appearing in rec.music.classical," Tholen.
>
> 1755> We were discussing your grammatical errors, Tholen.
>
> 1755> Why do you ask, O Hypocritical Liar?
>
> 1755> Wrong.
>
> 1755> The "correction" was in your post, Tholen. Further evidence of your
> 1755> lying and hypocriticalness...
>
> 1755> I can only wonder why you put any stake into anything I say to you,
> 1755> Tholen.
>
> 1755> As I've said in the past, of the 2 of us one is "seriously" attempting
> 1755> to "stand up to antagonism." The other is typing babble for the mere
> 1755> entertainment of watching the "serious" person have a need to respond.
>
> 1755> I am assuming you can which which of the 2 examples above is you,
> 1755> Tholen?
>
> 1755> No, the issue was your spelling and grammatical errors, Tholen. If my
> 1755> bringing them up was irrelevant Tholen, why are you discussing to
> 1755> them?
>
> 1755> Just don't reply Tholen.
>
> 1755> Its so easy yet so difficult for you.
>
> 1755> (especially if you read and reply to my other post without reading
> 1755> this one first :-)
>
> 1755> Your statement means little, Tholen.
>
> 1756> Yes.
>
> 1756> However I also admit that when I go to rec.music.classical this
> 1756> complete thread appears in the list of threads. What I do not admit to
> 1756> is that I had any need or reason to "stalk" you outside of
> 1756> rec.music.classical. My only possible "stalking" was just assuming
> 1756> that you were writing some anal yet entertaining drivel in a post
> 1756> which was titled "Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is
> 1756> IRRELEVANT!!!" Your name drew me to the post, but I had no need to
> 1756> "search" for it in another group.
>
> 1756> And what a "surprise" that I was correct to assume you'd be
> 1756> "tholenizing" away in a thread with your name in the title.
>
> 1756> You are erroneously presupposing I had to "stalk" you, Tholen.
>
> 1756> Perhaps true if what you had written above were accurate and correct.
> 1756> Unfortunately I had no need to go to another newsgroup. The thread
> 1756> appeared complete at rec.music.classical via google groups....
>
> 1756> And your point is what? What other motivation do I EVER have to write
> 1756> to you?
>
> 1756> Such a complete and provable LIAR you are, Tholen. Why just a few
> 1756> lines above you wrote: "I'm not the one who followed you to another
> 1756> newsgroup, grantco." And also: "You're erroneously presupposing that I
> 1756> made an error concerning the way Google Groups works, grantco."
>
> 1756> You are obviously still "discussing" it, Tholen...
>
> 1756> I merely go to wherever your newest drivel is Tholen. Luckily I didn't
> 1756> have to look far since this complete thread is readable from
> 1756> rec.music.classical.
>
> 1756> Still wrong.
>
> 1756> My postings and YOUR postings are in the thread, genius...
>
> 1756> And whether they are technically in comp.os.os2.advocacy or not, they
> 1756> are readable in the thread listing at rec.music.classical.
>
> 1756> By the way, wasn't it you who just above said you had "ceased
> 1756> discussing it?"
>
> 1756> Still wrong.
>
> 1756> The crossposting is what is relevant. it is WHY this thread appears in
> 1756> the thread lists at rec.music.classical.
>
> 1756> It is where your grammatical error appeared, Tholen.
>
> 1756> It is where your grammatical error appeared, Tholen.
>
> 1756> You erronously assume that I take anything I write to you seriously,
> 1756> Tholen.
>
> 1756> It is?
>
> 1756> No, There's 3 periods there just like I planned...
>
> 1756> Just like those above...
>
> 1756> And these...
>
> 1756> No dilemma. There is no truth which can be proven. I found this thread
> 1756> listed at rec.music.classical and responded to it.
>
> 1756> Beyond that it up to you to prove otherwise...
>
> 1756> Again, (read slowly) your posts and mine are IN THE THREAD.
>
> 1756> I know the frame says the group. That doesn't negate that I had to
> 1756> need to "stalk" you outside of rec.music.classical.
>
> 1756> And again, weren't you supposedly "ceased discussing" talking about
> 1756> this?
>
> 1756> Just can't control yourself, can you Tholen?
>
> 1756> My threads are in the postings.
>
> 1756> How did I need to stalk you if the thread appears at
> 1756> rec.music.classical? Its not a great effort to read the threads listed
> 1756> under "Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!"
>
> 1756> No, no where is there a statement regarding the contents of your
> 1756> "lesson in basic web design," tholen.
>
> 1756> Suffering from typing and memory issues, Tholen?
>
> 1756> Its listed at rec.music.classical.
>
> 1756> Wrong.
>
> 1756> Completey true, Tholen.
>
> 1756> What's your point?
>
> 1756> Why do you continue to write to someone who obviously considers you of
> 1756> no value other than for simple entertainment?
>
> 1757> Oooh,
>
> 1757> And don't forget to bring up the typing errors in my last post, Tholen.
>
> 1757> Unlike you I am man enough to admit they were there...
>
> 1757> So go lay by your dish Tholen.
>
> 1757> Good dog...
>
> 1758> Why are you commenting upon a single word, Tholen?
>
> 1758> I don't know Tholen. Its has never stopped you before from commenting
> 1758> upon typing erros from others has it?
>
> 1758> My postings are in the thread. My postings are listed under the title
> 1758> "Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!" as it
> 1758> appears in the thread list at rec.music.classical. Do you prefer I say
> 1758> posting rather than thread, Tholen? Does it actually change anything?
>
> 1758> The actual issue is stalking, Tholen. Given that this thread was
> 1758> listed at rec.music.classical due to crossposting there was no need to
> 1758> stalk....
>
> 1758> What is antagonistic about a dish, Tholen?
>
> 1758> How do you know what I think, Tholendog?
>
> 1759> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1759> Do you mean "yours," Tholen?
>
> 1759> I read it as I see it :-)
>
> 1759> Note: no relevant response.
>
> 1759> Note: no relevant response.
>
> 1759> Note: no relevant response.
>
> 1759> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1759> Is only what you say relevant, Tholen?
>
> 1759> Hypocrite.
>
> 1759> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1759> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1759> What does "You're are" mean, Tholen
>
> 1759> Hmmmm, deep...
>
> 1759> Playground again?
>
> 1759> On the contrary I was telling you about your dishonesty, Tholen.
> 1759> Of course you already knew that. Or do you prefer me to assume you are
> 1759> stupid?
>
> 1759> Again only you choose relevance, eh TholenChrist?
>
> 1759> Note: no response from Tholen the Hypocritical Liar.
>
> 1759> You dishonestly corrected a spelling error and refuse to acknowledge
> 1759> your documented grammatical errors. Where's the honesty upon your
> 1759> part?
>
> 1759> What was involved? Perhaps "dishonesty" is too complicated a word for
> 1759> you Tholen? Do you prefer "covering your ass?"
>
> 1759> What use your quote of me then?
>
> 1759> Do you or did you ever seriously think I had an opinion about a waste
> 1759> of bandwidth?
>
> 1759> What is "Intertesting," Tholen?
>
> 1759> Yeah, a word repeated. There it is.
>
> 1759> See how easy it is to be honest, Tholen?
>
> 1759> You should try it upon yourself, Tholen...
>
> 1759> Note; No relevant response.
>
> 1759> You erroneously assume that I would not be "entertained" by your not
> 1759> replying, Tholen.
>
> 1759> After you..
>
> 1759> How do you know?
>
> 1759> Is your "other" reply to it also irrelevant then, Tholen?
>
> 1759> This statement means even less...
>
> 1760> How is my direct reply to your statement "Non sequitur?"
>
> 1760> Obviously not.
>
> 1760> Obviously not.
>
> 1760> Define "follow?" This thread was listed with threads at
> 1760> rec.music.classical. Where was the "following?"
>
> 1760> Note: Threads contain postings.
>
> 1760> Somehow this fact continues to elude you, Tholen.
>
> 1760> Hypocrite.
>
> 1760> Whatever.
>
> 1760> Ah, I see you had no point, Tholen.
>
> 1760> Typical.
>
> 1760> Then you wouldn't have written "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous
> 1760> claim" above Tholen.
>
> 1760> Then you wouldn't have written "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous
> 1760> claim" above Tholen.
>
> 1760> Your statement means little coming from someone still "discussing" it,
> 1760> Tholen. You either were not aware of what you wrote, or merely too
> 1760> stupid to remember. Which is it genius?
>
> 1760> If your definition of stalking is my replying to a thread (containing
> 1760> postings) titled "Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is
> 1760> IRRELEVANT!!!" listed at rec.music.classical, then sure.
>
> 1760> Under the same criteria I would assume that you must also be stalking
> 1760> each time you reply to this thread. After all you only responded
> 1760> because your name was in the title.
>
> 1760> I guess we're stalkbrothers :-)
>
> 1760> Whatever.
>
> 1760> Whatever.
>
> 1760> My postings are still in the thread, Tholen.
>
> 1760> What is a thread without postings, Tholen?
>
> 1760> Whatever.
>
> 1760> Classic evasion, Tholen.
>
> 1760> You just can't help yourself can you Tholen?
>
> 1760> Remember before you reply to this post of mine that you have
> 1760> supposedly "ceased
> 1760> discussing it," Tholen.
>
> 1760> I wouldn't want you to add further evidence of your lying and
> 1760> hypocriticalness:-)
>
> 1760> They didn't need to be. These postings are all listed at
> 1760> rec.music.classical...
>
> 1760> Poor Tholen. Soooo flustered.
>
> 1760> Alleged? Is it your statement that when you wrote "no interesting in
> 1760> doing so" That there were not grammatical errors involved on your
> 1760> part, Tholen?
>
> 1760> Your grammatical errors are a fact, Tholen....
>
> 1760> Your use of a quote of mine proves otherwise, Tholen.
>
> 1760> No Tholen. Do your reading comprehension problems actually allow you
> 1760> to believe that foolishness and fool are the same word with the same
> 1760> definition, Tholen?
>
> 1760> Obviously not.
>
> 1760> (here's 3 more dots for you Tholen)
>
> 1760> ....
>
> 1760> Lack of substantiation on your part noted, Tholen.
>
> 1760> Again what is a thread without postings, Tholen?
>
> 1760> No. Your "claim" is that I needed to stalk you when all I did is click
> 1760> on a thread (filled with postings!) with your name in it listed at
> 1760> rec.music.classical.
>
> 1760> If that is what you consider stalking Tholen, then obviously you are
> 1760> guilty of it as well...
>
> 1760> Whatever.
>
> 1760> Poor Tholen. Such issues you have. This failure to admit errors must
> 1760> really irritate your wife, Tholen.
>
> 1760> Of course that is if you actually LIKE girls, Tholen?
>
> 1760> I'm sure little boys are much easier for you to boss around.
>
> 1760> I forget. Are you a doctor or a priest, Tholen?
>
> 1760> How?
>
> 1760> I thought you said we were discussing postings rather than threads,
> 1760> genius. Either way stalking is obviously irrelevant from your previous
> 1760> commentary.
>
> 1760> OK. Its not a great effort to read the postings listed under "Tholen
> 1760> Finally Admits that Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!"
>
> 1760> How does this change anything?
>
> 1760> Which is it Tholen?
>
> 1760> A "lesson in basic web design," or a "problem understanding basic web
> 1760> design?" Surely you don't mean that these statements are the same. The
> 1760> only common words are "web" and "design."
>
> 1760> Note; No relevant response...
>
> 1760> This list of postings under the title "Tholen Finally Admits that
> 1760> Substantiation is IRRELEVANT!!!" is listed at rec.music.classical.
>
> 1760> Again what does the use of "postings" rather than "thread" change?
>
> 1760> Such playgound logic Dr. You really should attempt to grow up and
> 1760> play with the adults, Tholen.
>
> 1760> Obviously you had no point...
>
> 1760> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1760> And your point is?
>
> 1761> I know.
>
> 1761> Those 2 syllable words really confuse poor Dr. Tholen.
>
> 1762> Your evasion is noted. Tholen.
>
> 1762> Why are you discussing rec.music.classical in OS/2 Tholen?
>
> 1762> Thank you for proving my point, Hypocrite.
>
> 1762> They are listed there.
>
> 1762> All your statement above does is admit your dishonesty in saying I
> 1762> stalked you. If now by your definition my posts are not at
> 1762> rec.music.classical because the header says comp.os.os2.advocacy, then
> 1762> you are correct.
>
> 1762> However a single click on a heading listed at rec.music.classical
> 1762> linking to comp.os.os2.advocacy does not a stalker make.
>
> 1762> Your pitiful evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1762> Your pitiful evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1762> "followed?" I clicked a link, once.
>
> 1762> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1762> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, tholen.
>
> 1762> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1763> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1763> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1763> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1763> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1763> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1763> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1763> Tacit admission of knowing you wouldn't admit an error on your part
> 1763> regardless of its existence.
>
> 1763> Considering the fact of your dishonestly correcting your spelling and
> 1763> grammatical errors, the possibility of your admitting anything
> 1763> substantial is slim.
>
> 1763> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1763> Ah, I see you continue to have no point, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Besides, I asked "And your point is what? What other motivation do I
> 1763> EVER have to write to you?"
>
> 1763> Your answer was irrelevant to my question.
>
> 1763> Still in the playground Dr. Suess?
>
> 1763> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1763> Obviously you still are unaware of what you wrote, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Obviously you still are unaware of what you wrote, Tholen
>
> 1763> Such lies, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Again from your last post: "Tacit admission that the thread does NOT
> 1763> appear complete at rec.music.classical, grantco?"
>
> 1763> You obviously still are discussing it.
>
> 1763> Ah, too stupid to remember, Tholen...
>
> 1763> Not if the postings are listed at rec.music.classical. Perhaps
> 1763> "clicking" on your post linked to OS/2. Are you implying that my
> 1763> single click was a stalk?
>
> 1763> Obviously not.
>
> 1763> Obviously not.
>
> 1763> Obviously not.
>
> 1763> Tacit admission of knowing you wouldn't admit an error on your part
> 1763> regardless of its existence.
>
> 1763> Tacit admission of knowing you wouldn't admit an error on your part
> 1763> regardless of its existence.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is noted, Tholen..
>
> 1763> Tacit admission of knowing you wouldn't admit an error on your part
> 1763> regardless of its existence.
>
> 1763> Answer mine first Hypocrite.
> 1763> Classic evasion, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Classic evasion, Tholen.
>
> 1763> And yet you continue to discuss that which you claim to have ceased
> 1763> discussing.
>
> 1763> Hypocirte.
>
> 1763> Note; No relevant response.
>
> 1763> Sooo flustered...
>
> 1763> Considering your incorrect useage of the word "alleged" I assumed your
> 1763> question to be null and void, Tholen. Your errors are not alleged.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> What then was your point?
>
> 1763> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Why would you need 3 dots after I just gave them to you?
>
> 1763> Or do you need more?
>
> 1763> Your evasion again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your grammatical errors are so much more obvious and apparent, yet you
> 1763> do not admit, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Or should I just call you Hypocrite. Tholen?
>
> 1763> Is your statement that a single click on your posting was stalking?
>
> 1763> That's it.
>
> 1763> You first Hypocrite. I though you had "ceased discussing it," Tholen.
>
> 1763> My posting were listed at rec.music.classical. Their group header said
> 1763> comp.os.os2.advocacy, yet with a single click they were readable
> 1763> without my first going to the comp.os.os2.advocacy newsgroup. If
> 1763> that's what you consider admitting it, so be it...
>
> 1763> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> What is at issue? Is it your position that when I clicked on your post
> 1763> listed under "Tholen Finally Admits that Substantiation is
> 1763> IRRELEVANT!!!" and it linked to your post at comp.os.os2.advocacy that
> 1763> that entailed stalking?
>
> 1763> Your obvious evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your inevitable evasion is AGAIN noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your inevitable evasion is AGAIN noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your inevitable evasion is AGAIN noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> And yet more playgound logic from Dr. Tholen. Or is it Suess?
>
> 1763> I see that you didn't answer the question previous to your irrelevant
> 1763> question, Tholen. No surprise there, really.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1763> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1764> Even more ironic coming from someone who contends that a single click
> 1764> on a link equals "stalking," Tholen.
>
> 1764> You asked the question, Tholen.
>
> 1764> What was your purpose in asking if you were not  , Tholen?
>
> 1765> Your evasion is noted. Tholen.
>
> 1765> Your evasion is noted. Tholen.
>
> 1765> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1765> Your evasion is noted. Tholen.
>
> 1765> Liar.
>
> 1765> Your pitiful evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1765> Your pitiful evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1765> Liar.
>
> 1765> Your pitiful evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1765> Your pitiful evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1765> Hmmm Tholen. I see you must be removing my quote of you from your
> 1765> previous posting wherein you said:
>
> 1765> Is your memory that short, Tholen?
>
> 1765> How ironic that you hypocritially continue to remove it, Tholen.
>
> 1765> It must be an embarrassment for you to continue to "discuss it" after
> 1765> you said you had "ceased."
>
> 1765> Hypocrite.
>
> 1766> I see you answered my previous question with an irrelevant question,
> 1766> Tholen.
>
> 1766> Definitely NO surprise there.
>
> 1766> I see you answered my previous question with an irrelevant question,
> 1766> Tholen.
>
> 1766> Definitely NO surprise there.
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Yet another playground moment from Dr. Tholen (or is it Suess?).
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Note: Still no relevant response.
>
> 1766> Still in the playground Dr. Suess? Or is it Tholen?
>
> 1766> Such an obvious display of your being a Hypocrite, Tholen. You are
> 1766> "well aware" of my not answering your question when it is obvious you
> 1766> have yet to answer mine.
>
> 1766> After you, Tholen...
>
> 1766> Yes, your answer was non sequitur, Tholen.
>
> 1766> (Hey this playground logic is fun! Such a great idea you had using it,
> 1766> Tholen)
>
> 1766> Oh ok, merely a grammatical "cover up" but not dishonest.
>
> 1766> Sure Tholen, that makes tons of "logical" sense.
>
> 1766> Thanks, Stupid.
>
> 1766> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Why, the ample evidenve of your hypocriticalness and dishonesty which
> 1766> you display when posting to newsgroups, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Evasion again noted.
>
> 1766> What is the source of your obvious fear in answering a simple
> 1766> question. Hypocrite?
>
> 1766> Evasion again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Evasion again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Note; No response from Tholen.
>
> 1766> How predictable.
>
> 1766> Again, why would I answer your question when I asked a question first,
> 1766> Tholen? Rather ironic and Hypocritical for you to assume supremacy,
> 1766> Tholen.
>
> 1766> Or again is it TholenGod?
>
> 1766> Again the true irony is that you never answered the previous question
> 1766> regarding what "Intertesting," is, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Though I must say I am proud of you to control your impulse to correct
> 1766> your obvious spelling error.
>
> 1766> Perhaps you are beginning to mature in your posting after all, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Your question is irrelevant to my invoking God.
>
> 1766> You know? Your statement above would be very interesting if not for
> 1766> the fact that we were discussing your spelling and grammatical errors,
> 1766> Tholen. As it stands your last issue was completey irrelevant to what
> 1766> we were discussing.
>
> 1766> Plus, wasn't it you who said:
>
> 1766> Again who made you the supreme authority for answering questions or
> 1766> asking? The real lack of surprise is you thinking you actually
> 1766> answered the question I asked previous to yours...
>
> 1766> Your lack of relevant response proves your being a liar, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Rather ironic that you would continue to make the same claim when it
> 1766> is obvious you never provided an adequate answer to my previous
> 1766> question.
>
> 1766> It is no surprise that you continue to be a hypocrite, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Rather ironic that you would continue to make the same claim when it
> 1766> is obvious you never provided an adequate answer to my previous
> 1766> question.
>
> 1766> It is no surprise that you continue to be a hypocrite, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Yes, your lack of demonstration is ironic, Tholen. (Ah, playground
> 1766> logic!)
>
> 1766> Even more ironic is that you supposedly wish to be rid of
> 1766> "antagonists" yet refuse to do the one thing which would rid you of
> 1766> them almost entirely.
>
> 1766> It must be very boring and lonely up there on your mountain being an
> 1766> "astrologer," eh Dr. Tholen?
>
> 1766> What did your previous question regarding my completing sentences have
> 1766> to do with OS/2 tholen?
>
> 1766> Or do you prefer to be called Hypocrite?
>
> 1766> Evasion noted, Tholen.
>
> 1766> Evasion again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1766> And don't forget:
>
> 1767> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1767> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1767> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1767> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1767> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1767> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1767> Note: No relevant response.
>
> 1767> Actually you must need better reading comprehension skills, Tholen.
> 1767> You asked "Tacit admission that the thread does NOT appear complete
> 1767> at rec.music.classical, granto?" and my answer was "Tacit admission of
> 1767> knowing you wouldn't admit an error on your part regardless of its
> 1767> existence."
>
> 1767> That is an answer, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Perhaps you should ask your Mommy to read it for you if the words are
> 1767> too big?
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Note: the evidence of Tholen still "discussing it" provided above.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> I'm well aware of your dependancy upon "playground logic" as well Dr.
> 1767> Tholen. Or is it Dr. Suess?
>
> 1767> Substantiation is in this very post of yours dumb ass. As well as in
> 1767> the other three (3!) replies you recently wrote.
>
> 1767> Must you hide from the FACTS of your dishonesty, Tholen?
>
> 1767> The question, Genius, was "Which is it genius?"
>
> 1767> Interesting that you should forget so soon, Genius...
>
> 1767> Liar.
>
> 1767> Liar.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> I see you continue to erroneously presuppose you answered my previous
> 1767> question, Tholen. Since you consider yourself an expert on google and
> 1767> web design it should not be so difficult for you to answer:
>
> 1767> What is a thread without postings, Tholen?
>
> 1767> Gee Tholen, It had as much to do with OS/2 as your accusation of
> 1767> "stalking," your discussing "google groups," your discussing "basic
> 1767> web design" etc.
>
> 1767> That was after all what we were discussing. Your question regarding
> 1767> OS/2 is obviously irrelevant to the topic at hand, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Lying within the same post you deny in is even too stupid for YOU,
> 1767> Tholen.
>
> 1767> Just above you wrote:
>
> 1767> "The key word here is "if", grantco. They aren't listed at
> 1767> rec.music.classical"
>
> 1767> You ARE STILL discussing it, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Hmmmm, considering the immense amount of errors you have created in
> 1767> your past posts I'd think you'd know better by now.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen. Or should I just call you Fool, Tholen?
> 1767> Or do you prefer Dr. Fool, Tholen?
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Therin lies the true issue. Your post to comp.os.os2.advocacy is
> 1767> listed at rec.music.classical. when I click on your post it perhaps
> 1767> links to comp.os.os2.advocacy, yet the fact remains it is a SINGLE
> 1767> click.
>
> 1767> Again does that SINGLE click on your post constitute "stalking?"
>
> 1767> Too stupid for sarcasm, Tholen? Or is it Dr. Fool?
>
> 1767> And again, hadn't you supposedly "ceased discussing" this?
>
> 1767> I'm still waiting for you to substantiate this bogus claim, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Or is it Dr. Bogus?
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Note: No reponse.
>
> 1767> Note: No reponse.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Responded, yes. Clicked once upon your post, yes.
>
> 1767> Stalked, no.
>
> 1767> Your obvious evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your obvious evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your obvious evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your obvious evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your obvious evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your obvious evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your obvious evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Your obvious evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> What is an "erotic clam," Tholen?
>
> 1767> Or am I supposed to assume it more dishonest for me to alter your
> 1767> previous post incorrectly than it is dishonest for your to correct
> 1767> your errors? :-)
>
> 1767> Your obvious evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1767> Ah my poor Hypocritical and Dishonest Tholen.
>
> 1767> Did you again remove my quote from you?
>
> 1767> Hardly...
>
> 1768> Tsk tsk, such a waste of bandwidth, Tholen.
>
> "Actually I care little about a waste of bandwidth."
> --grantco
>
> Hypocrite.
>
> 1768> Especially considering you already addressed my posts elsewhere.
>
> 1768> Hypocrite.
>
> 1769> Your continued evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your question had nothing to do with OS/2, Hypocrite.
>
> 1769> In case your memory is short you wrote:
>
> 1769> Which part of your question was about OS/2 Tholen?
>
> 1769> Or is it Dr. Hypocrite?
>
> 1769> Evasion noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Again Tholen, you weren't discussing OS/2, Let me again remind you of
> 1769> your last statement:
>
> 1769> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your continued hallucinating is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your continued hallucinating is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your continued hallucinating is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your continued hallucinating is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your continued hallucinating is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Tholen denying facts?
>
> 1769> Or do you prefer to be called Lying Hypocrite?
>
> 1769> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Obviously you are not aware of what you wrote.
>
> 1769> Your evasion of the matter above proves your guilt, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion of the matter above proves your guilt, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion of the matter above proves your guilt, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Back to the playground, Dr. Tholen? Or is it Suess?
>
> 1769> Back to the playground, Dr. Tholen? Or is it Suess?
>
> 1769> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your continued pathetic evasion is noted. Its a simple question,
> 1769> Tholen. And it is in regards to your off-topic statement previously
> 1769> posted.
>
> 1769> Your continued pathetic evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your continued pathetic evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your continued pathetic evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your continued pathetic evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your continued pathetic evasion is noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Or is it Liar?
>
> 1769> Again more lies, Tholen? Where you said I completely "ignored the
> 1769> substantiation" is completely irrelevant. The issue was whether you
> 1769> had "ceased discussing it." Considering your statement that this is
> 1769> being posted to OS/2 your substantiation regarding rec.music.classical
> 1769> is off-topic.
>
> 1769> It is however ample proof that you are still "discussing it."
>
> 1769> Hypocrite.
>
> 1769> Its a mispelling of the word Hypocrite, Hypocrite.
>
> 1769> Tholen still has no point.
>
> 1769> Nore evasion from Tholen.
>
> 1769> Typical.
>
> 1769> Your evasion still noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion still noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion still noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion still noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion still noted, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Your evasion still noted on all the above points, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Indeed, your lack of response is ironic, Dr. Suess.
>
> 1769> Indeed, your lack of response is ironic, Dr. Suess.
>
> 1769> I selected the thread from the list at rec.music.classical. But of
> 1769> course you continue to forget:
>
> 1769> Hypocrite.
>
> 1769> Your Hypocriticalness is again noted and substantiated, Tholen.
>
> 1769> Did you again remove my quote from you?
>
> 1769> But then you hypocritically went on to write:
>
> 1769> and:
>
> 1769> and:
>
> 1769> and:
>
> 1769> But of course the best is saved for last:
>
> 1769> Substantiation of your dishonesty provided, Hypocrite.
>
> 1770> Because we were discussing your spelling errors, Tholen.
>
> 1770> Because we were discussing your spelling errors, Tholen.
>
> 1770> We were discussing your posting of my quote above, Tholen.
> 1770> Or is your statement that your posting of my quote had something to do
> 1770> with OS/2, Hypocrite?
>
> 1770> Even more ironic being chastized from the person who wrote:
>
> 1770> Even more ironic coming from the person who will continue to
> 1770> dishonestly remove his damning quote posted above.
>
> 1770> Hasn't stopped you, has it?
>
> 1770> Given that I was already AT rec.music.classical one click was all that
> 1770> was left.
>
> 1770> A misspelling of the word "evidence," Tholen.
>
> 1770> No, more like you not answering the simple question: "Did you say
> 1770> something, Hypocritial Liar?"
>
> 1770> More evasion from Dr. Suess.
>
> 1770> Your hallucinatory evasion is again noted, Tholen.
>
> 1770> On what basis do you claim my responsibility to answer your question
> 1770> when you didn't answer mine, hypocrite?
>
> 1770> You never answered the question regarding what is "Intertesting," is
> 1770> Tholen.
>
> 1770> My pride is in your uncorrcted post which was posted to OS/2, Tholen.
> 1770> Or was your post to OS/2 off-topic, Hypocrite?
>
> 1770> What did you bringing up my so-called reading comprehension problems
> 1770> have to do with OS/2, Tholen?
>
> 1770> On the contrary we were discussing your spelling and grammatical
> 1770> errors,
> 1770> Tholen.
>
> 1770> Indeed. So "aware" that you again had to dishonestly remove it.
>
> 1770> Here it is again:
>
> 1770> Again who made you the supreme authority for answering questions or
> 1770> asking?
>
> 1770> The first question was, "You have? Where Liar?"
>
> 1770> Did you answer THAT question, Tholen?
>
> 1770> Again, perhaps you should answer the question provided before asking
> 1770> another question, Hypocrite?
>
> 1770> Hypocrite.
>
> 1770> Yes, especially considering I learned it from you.
>
> 1770> Weasel words?
>
> 1770> What do weasel words have to do with OS/2, Hypocrite?
>
> 1770> I see you didn't answer my last question, Hypocrite.
>
> 1770> As you evaded my question "Having a problem with multiple "dashes,"
> 1770> Tholen?"
>
> 1770> Typical.
>
> 1770> Hmmm, just can't stand that quote from you, eh Tholen?
>
> 1770> Perhaps you need to read it again:
>
> 1770> hardly.
>
> 1771> Your continued evasion is noted for all of the above, Tholen.
>
> 1771> I see you again removed your embarrassing quote, Tholen.
>
> 1771> Amazing how your dishonesty just doesn't make it go away.
>
> 1771> Your other posts are substantiation, Hypocrite.
>
> 1771> Ah but the best you continue to remove:
>
> Further evidence of your ongoing need to harass me, grantco: following
> me to another newsgroup, while pretending you're still in the
> rec.music.classical newsgroup. In that case, might as well tally
> your postings and play into your little delusion.
>
> Evidence that grantco is a fool:
>
> "As always you erroneously assume that the foolishness
> of these exchanges with you is not apparent to me. I
> acknowledge the foolishness."
> --grantco
>
> "My threads are in the postings."
> --grantco
>
> Evidence for grantco's hypocrisy:
>
> "Actually I care little about a waste of bandwidth."
> --grantco
>
> "Just don't reply Tholen."
> --grantco
>
> "I've told him all he would have to do is literally ASK
> for me not to continue and I would do it."
> --grantco
>
> [30] Would you not continue, grantco?
>
> Above is evidence that grantco lied, given that I did ask (29 times)
> for him not to continue.
>
> ========================================
===================================
>
> Michael Baldwin Bruce writes:
>
> 209> splunge, bruce.
>
> 209> My brain hurts!
>
> 209> He .. he used to oblige them, bruce?
>
> 210> Stuff the jam spoon, bruce!
>
> 211> Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
> 211> system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from
> 211> the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony, bruce.
>
> 212> What a silly bunt.
>
> What does any of that have to do with classical music, Bruce?[/color]
Oh, I'm sorry, bruce but I'm only answering questions on farming.
[color=darkred]
>
> ========================================
===================================
>
> Cypherpunk writes:
>
> 796> KOOK! Q.E.D.
>
> 796> Freddie D. 'fag' Shorts
>
> 796> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
> 796> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if yer horny!
> 796> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!
>
> 796> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!
>
> What does your proof that you are a kook have to do with classical
> music, Cypherpunk?
>
> ========================================
===================================
>
> alias # today total last year
> -------------- ------- ----- ---------
> bruce 4 212 0
> nightingale 181 1613
> bisectional 162 0
> cypherpunk 1 160 578
> grantco 17 107 229
> greycloud 91 0
> zwar 85 348
> kohl 84 2192
> dizzy 82 522
> patterson 72 135
> fields 66 678
> aratzio 46 0
> chatterly 46 0
> wehrung 41 262
> elizabot 40 0
> ross 36 10
> daniels 34 165
> haslam 30 675
> karttunen 28 97
> hertz 27 0
> lockhart 25 60
> drysdale 24 0
> drpostman 22 54
> bloggs 21 200
> diogenes 20 0
> freud 20 44
> th@len 20 0
> ah 18 0
> chrisv 17 0
> edwin 15 0
> deus 14 0
> phoenix 14 18
> relic 14 0
> parsnip 13 0
> jaakko 12 99
> kolle 12 264
> beck 11 239
> bostonblackie 10 0
> penso 10 172
> flonkenstein 9 0
> kadaitcha 9 0
> ranger 9 0
> hgj 8 0
> logical 8 0
> "nightingale" 8 0
> bornfeld 6 14
> charlie 6 0
> rickenbacker 6 0
> snit 5 0
> concerned 4 0
> donna 4 0
> qasim 4 0
> hucker 4 2
> prai jei 4 11
> yyyiiinnnggg 4 0
> alex 3 0
> andrews 3 1
> antispim.him 3 0
> casa 3 0
> g&p 3 0
> invalid 3 0
> jazz guy 3 3
> jim 3 0
> marty 3 0
> sutton 3 1
> ?ho|en 2 0
> ? 2 0
> ada9 2 0
> adam 2 13
> balaam 2 0
> braves fan 2 0
> dodel 2 0
> harrington 2 64
> hernandez 2 0
> js 2 0
> kennedy 2 3
> marshall 2 0
> molybdenum 2 0
> n 2 0
> schultz 2 5
> toughlin 2 0
> tweet 2 7
> wiser 2 3
> . 1 0
> afoklala 1 0
> akhen 1 0
> antagonismo 1 90
> antagonist 1 0
> blonko 1 0
> bob 1 1
> briggs 1 20
> burtner 1 0
> cargle 1 0
> catroo 1 108
> cohen 1 0
> commentator 1 0
> creevey 1 69
> daveb 1 0
> durante 1 0
> emperor 1 0
> ende 1 0
> extreme 1 0
> fischer 1 0
> gactimus 1 0
> gamble 1 13
> girouard 1 2
> god 1 0
> gorden 1 0
> granzeau 1 0
> h 1 0
> highwood 1 12
> homie 1 1
> ilechko 1 0
> koehlmann 1 0
> lawrence 1 1
> learned 1 0
> liath 1 0
> lysaght 1 0
> martin 1 0
> mirah 1 0
> mitzel 1 0
> monkey 1 1
> muething 1 5
> o'brien 1 0
> o'donoghue 1 0
> osterwald 1 0
> ot 1 0
> pinups 1 0
> ploni 1 4
> porky 1 16
> pragmatist 1 0
> refutebot 1 0
> rice 1 0
> rick 1 0
> roberts 1 8
> steiner 1 0
> stratford 1 1
> straussvogel 1 0
> sutton 1 1
> tuan 1 0
> voege 1 0
> weinkam 1 0
> whitney 1 0
> -------------- ------- ----- ---------
> 143 22 2166 10033[/color]
|