FACE
May 26th 07, 12:56 PM
On Wed, 23 May 2007 14:16:03 -0800, in uk.current-events.terrorism
(Floyd L. Davidson), wrote
>FACE > wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:52:14 -0800, in uk.current-events.terrorism
(Floyd L. Davidson), wrote
>>
>>>FACE > wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:15:28 -0800, in uk.current-events.terrorism
(Floyd L. Davidson), wrote
>>>>
>>>>>FACE > wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 23 May 2007 06:36:11 -0800, in uk.current-events.terrorism
(Floyd L. Davidson), wrote
>>
>><that'll do>
>>
>>I suppose you think that I somehow believe that you "just happened by" this
>>little backwater ng?
>>
>>uh............no.
>
>I happen to read just about *anything* posted to Usenet that
>mentions ANWR. You posted a set of lies that are not exactly
>new...
Well this is the space.
You have repeatedly called me a liar and I have not lied about a damned
thing. I posted a publication originally in the Washington Post which I
located at http://www.anwr.org/features/lessrefuge.htm by the then Senator
from Alaska.
But you are a disingenuous liar.
I tested your above claim about how you got here, where you say:
>I happen to read just about *anything* posted to Usenet that
>mentions ANWR.
Not just 'anything' but the exact text to which you originally replied to on
this newsgroup has been posted on 4 newsgroups -- one was posted late on
5/23 and other three were posted in the early AM on 5/24. None have been
replied to. More time has elapsed since those messages were posted than
between my posting and your first attack on that posting. Since you claim
that you read "just about anything posted to Usenet that mentions ANWR" you
would have read at least one of these.
Each one contains a closing line that challenges you to post here that you
found it. And asks if you really are that obsessed. You would not pass up
such a challenge to show that you are not a liar.
Is "just about anything" 75%? That would have been 3 out of the 4.
Is "just about anything" 50%? That would have been 2 out of the 4.
Is "just about anything" 25%? That would have been 1 out of the 4.
....but you were just lying, weren't you?
At least you could have found the one posted under FACE. But you didn't.
I gave you time to "find" them....at least one of them. LOL!.
The groups are:
ne.politics
wyo.energy
wi.northeastern.talk
alt.is.not
They have the timestamps on them.
Google has all of those groups and has had all my ANWR messages to them
since shortly after posting.
All of the subject lines are as non-ANWR as "Whiehouse hits back at Carter"
to which you replied here. Each message contains the exact same text as the
one that you replied to here only with a couple of intro and closing lines.
Of course your silly excuses will be forthcoming..........and all for
naught -- you will probably act like george and try to make a big deal out
of a misplaced comma or something.
You've been caught out.
You lie, Floyd!
I know how your sorry hired-gun self got here to a backwater UK terrorism
group.
Unless others here prefer to be willfully ignorant, they will figure it out,
one other than me already knows for sure.
Apparently I was supposed to be impressed or fall for your schtick. I
wasn't. I didn't.
You are a liar and a loser and neither of you are half as clever as you
think you are.
BTW, when I was messing with ANWR on Google Groups, one of your usenet
playgrounds dropped out. I am crossposting this to rec.aviation.owning.
Come on george, imply to me again that I waste energy.............
Floyd, I have suspected your motivation since your first message. It has
been proved. You were recruited as a hit man. You lost by your own
disingenuousness and lies.
FACE
(Floyd L. Davidson), wrote
>FACE > wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:52:14 -0800, in uk.current-events.terrorism
(Floyd L. Davidson), wrote
>>
>>>FACE > wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:15:28 -0800, in uk.current-events.terrorism
(Floyd L. Davidson), wrote
>>>>
>>>>>FACE > wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 23 May 2007 06:36:11 -0800, in uk.current-events.terrorism
(Floyd L. Davidson), wrote
>>
>><that'll do>
>>
>>I suppose you think that I somehow believe that you "just happened by" this
>>little backwater ng?
>>
>>uh............no.
>
>I happen to read just about *anything* posted to Usenet that
>mentions ANWR. You posted a set of lies that are not exactly
>new...
Well this is the space.
You have repeatedly called me a liar and I have not lied about a damned
thing. I posted a publication originally in the Washington Post which I
located at http://www.anwr.org/features/lessrefuge.htm by the then Senator
from Alaska.
But you are a disingenuous liar.
I tested your above claim about how you got here, where you say:
>I happen to read just about *anything* posted to Usenet that
>mentions ANWR.
Not just 'anything' but the exact text to which you originally replied to on
this newsgroup has been posted on 4 newsgroups -- one was posted late on
5/23 and other three were posted in the early AM on 5/24. None have been
replied to. More time has elapsed since those messages were posted than
between my posting and your first attack on that posting. Since you claim
that you read "just about anything posted to Usenet that mentions ANWR" you
would have read at least one of these.
Each one contains a closing line that challenges you to post here that you
found it. And asks if you really are that obsessed. You would not pass up
such a challenge to show that you are not a liar.
Is "just about anything" 75%? That would have been 3 out of the 4.
Is "just about anything" 50%? That would have been 2 out of the 4.
Is "just about anything" 25%? That would have been 1 out of the 4.
....but you were just lying, weren't you?
At least you could have found the one posted under FACE. But you didn't.
I gave you time to "find" them....at least one of them. LOL!.
The groups are:
ne.politics
wyo.energy
wi.northeastern.talk
alt.is.not
They have the timestamps on them.
Google has all of those groups and has had all my ANWR messages to them
since shortly after posting.
All of the subject lines are as non-ANWR as "Whiehouse hits back at Carter"
to which you replied here. Each message contains the exact same text as the
one that you replied to here only with a couple of intro and closing lines.
Of course your silly excuses will be forthcoming..........and all for
naught -- you will probably act like george and try to make a big deal out
of a misplaced comma or something.
You've been caught out.
You lie, Floyd!
I know how your sorry hired-gun self got here to a backwater UK terrorism
group.
Unless others here prefer to be willfully ignorant, they will figure it out,
one other than me already knows for sure.
Apparently I was supposed to be impressed or fall for your schtick. I
wasn't. I didn't.
You are a liar and a loser and neither of you are half as clever as you
think you are.
BTW, when I was messing with ANWR on Google Groups, one of your usenet
playgrounds dropped out. I am crossposting this to rec.aviation.owning.
Come on george, imply to me again that I waste energy.............
Floyd, I have suspected your motivation since your first message. It has
been proved. You were recruited as a hit man. You lost by your own
disingenuousness and lies.
FACE