Quack, quack! It's all about credibility you don't have, Duckboy!

In article , Dustrpilot says...

"Juan..E.-Jimenez" b*d&5^-@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m

I dont think this is Juan, but I could be wrong.

You know it's hard to say, zoom and jaun sound a lot alike in their writings
and mentality.
See ya

Chuck aka Duckboy,el Pollo loco,ShakyJake ,Dad,Grampa, Hey, S

In article Z9Wyb.278857$ao4.989051@attbi_s51,
Juan..E.-Jimenez b*d&5^-@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m wrote:
Don't forget, we're still waiting for the proof you'll never show, Duckboy!




Don't forget, we're *still* waiting for the proof that YOU'LL never show -- the
proof that you are *not* a liar and a fraud, yourself, Jimmy, baby.

You have repeatedly claimed that Chuck either:
A) Wasn't at SNF at all
B) Was there, but didn't have any vehicle there
C) Was there with a vehicle, but didn't own it.

You made the claim; the onus is on _you_ to provide proof.

If you don't have proof, you're a fraud.

If you're wrong, you're a liar.

Your ONGOING REFUSAL to address this issue goes to _your_ credibility.

At this point, you *don't* have ANY credibility on this issue, and as a
result of -that-, your credibility on _anything_else_ is also called into
question.

And the available evidence says that you're a LIAR AND A FRAUD.


Now, *prove*me*wrong*. If you _CAN_.

Show your proof.

If you can't/won't, you *are* _what_you_claim_ Chuck is.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:17:22 +0000,
wrote:

:In article Z9Wyb.278857$ao4.989051@attbi_s51,
:Juan..E.-Jimenez b*d&5^-@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m wrote:
:Don't forget, we're still waiting for the proof you'll never show, Duckboy!
:
:
:
:
on't forget, we're *still* waiting for the proof that YOU'LL never show -- the
roof that you are *not* a liar and a fraud, yourself, Jimmy, baby.
:
:You have repeatedly claimed that Chuck either:
: A) Wasn't at SNF at all
: B) Was there, but didn't have any vehicle there
: C) Was there with a vehicle, but didn't own it.
:
:You made the claim; the onus is on _you_ to provide proof.
:
:If you don't have proof, you're a fraud.
:
:If you're wrong, you're a liar.
:
:Your ONGOING REFUSAL to address this issue goes to _your_ credibility.
:
:At this point, you *don't* have ANY credibility on this issue, and as a
:result of -that-, your credibility on _anything_else_ is also called into
:question.
:
:And the available evidence says that you're a LIAR AND A FRAUD.
:
:
:Now, *prove*me*wrong*. If you _CAN_.
:
:Show your proof.
:
:If you can't/won't, you *are* _what_you_claim_ Chuck is.
:

"Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud"

Yes? And your point is?

When you state the obvious, a simple fact that everyone accepts as a
basic part of reality, it's not an argument. At most it's the opening
of an argument, the basis on which you intend to build your point.
"The sun comes up in the east" needs to be followed with a
conclusion, like "THERFORE, you should try to live to the east of
where you work, so the sun will be at your back during your drive to
and from work"

I don't think anyone can disagree with your opening statment, it's
where you go with it that's the question.

jaun has his own Dodge Ram for sale, wonder if the title is in his name ?
LOL!!!

Chuck S RAH-15/1

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in
message ...
jaun has his own Dodge Ram for sale, wonder if the title is in his
name ?
LOL!!!

Chuck S RAH-15/1


Nope - according to his ad in dfw.forsale, he still owes $8,600 on it,
so the "pink slip" would be in the lienholder's name. Maybe he's
jealous that you have title?

- cj

In the last week he's also put up a monitor, a basketball hoop, and a
box of Pergo flooring.

jaun has his own Dodge Ram for sale, wonder if the title is in his
name ?
LOL!!!

Chuck S RAH-15/1


Nope - according to his ad in dfw.forsale, he still owes $8,600 on it,
so the "pink slip" would be in the lienholder's name. Maybe he's
jealous that you have title?

- cj

In the last week he's also put up a monitor, a basketball hoop, and a
box of Pergo flooring.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Geez...
How can a guy/gal not like RAH?

Even a DFW total asshole can't escape scrutiny.


Barnyard BOb --

In article , wrote:

I don't think anyone can disagree with your opening statment, it's
where you go with it that's the question.


It's a follow-up "for the record", to _any_ post he makes, on that subject.
Exactly the same challenge issued to him, as he issued to Chuck.


It is done to ensure that he cannot get away with the 'big lie' approach.

Yeah, its a rehash of 'old news' to the RAH regulars. but it ensures he won't
be able to fool any 'new blood'. Not now, not ever. Safely archived
on Google, for anybody to find, who searches on his name.

Lastly, he *publicly*stated* that he _doesn't_care_ if I call him a liar and a
fraud. So he _can't_ EVER come after me for libel/slander for saying it.

In article rs.com,
says...

In article , wrot
e:

I don't think anyone can disagree with your opening statment, it's
where you go with it that's the question.


It's a follow-up "for the record", to _any_ post he makes, on that sub
ject.
Exactly the same challenge issued to him, as he issued to Chuck.


It is done to ensure that he cannot get away with the 'big lie' approa
ch.

Yeah, its a rehash of 'old news' to the RAH regulars. but it ensures h
e won't
be able to fool any 'new blood'. Not now, not ever. Safely archived
on Google, for anybody to find, who searches on his name.

Lastly, he *publicly*stated* that he _doesn't_care_ if I call him a li
ar and a
fraud. So he _can't_ EVER come after me for libel/slander for saying
it.


As long as Juan refuses to answer the question it sure appears that he
is a liar and a fraud. Maybe the regular posting of the question keeps
him quiet since he hasn't posted much lately Keep on posting the
question.