73Zeppeilin - (not) guilty of libel [modified]
-
-- modofied-- ok, sorry I misread "on respect for living thigs" as "no respect for living things" I must retract the libel charge. I stand by thr rst though -- end -- Listen, a**hole, I have no objection to your putting my words on your sig - in fact, if anything I am quite content for you to advertise for me the fact that I think you are a sh*thead and wish you'd f*** off and die, but by what twisted logic you interpret either my disrespect for you or my giving animals the same right to their life that you wish for yours, and a right not to be tortured and murdered for medical research, into saying that I have "no respect for living things" is beyond me, and I think you should remove that from you sig; in the absence of any logical argument for that statement I can only assume that you are a liar, and it is simple libel. All the more reason for my original statement about you, I think. Stick to the facts, or even your opinion, and you can say what you like about me, rude or otherwise, but making up falsehoods about me to make yourself feel better is not on. (Mind you, I'm still not quite sure what your objection to my rudeness to you is - after all, you did say "You can't insult me". Now you know I can. Dickhead.) Fred -- modified at 11:33 Monday 15th October, 2007
-
-- modofied-- ok, sorry I misread "on respect for living thigs" as "no respect for living things" I must retract the libel charge. I stand by thr rst though -- end -- Listen, a**hole, I have no objection to your putting my words on your sig - in fact, if anything I am quite content for you to advertise for me the fact that I think you are a sh*thead and wish you'd f*** off and die, but by what twisted logic you interpret either my disrespect for you or my giving animals the same right to their life that you wish for yours, and a right not to be tortured and murdered for medical research, into saying that I have "no respect for living things" is beyond me, and I think you should remove that from you sig; in the absence of any logical argument for that statement I can only assume that you are a liar, and it is simple libel. All the more reason for my original statement about you, I think. Stick to the facts, or even your opinion, and you can say what you like about me, rude or otherwise, but making up falsehoods about me to make yourself feel better is not on. (Mind you, I'm still not quite sure what your objection to my rudeness to you is - after all, you did say "You can't insult me". Now you know I can. Dickhead.) Fred -- modified at 11:33 Monday 15th October, 2007
Fred_Smith wrote:
in the absence of any logical argument for that statement I can only assume that you are a liar, and it is simple libel.
If I were on a jury and I read that you opposed animal testing even though it saves human lives, I'd find him not guilty. By the way...[^]
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
-- modofied-- ok, sorry I misread "on respect for living thigs" as "no respect for living things" I must retract the libel charge. I stand by thr rst though -- end -- Listen, a**hole, I have no objection to your putting my words on your sig - in fact, if anything I am quite content for you to advertise for me the fact that I think you are a sh*thead and wish you'd f*** off and die, but by what twisted logic you interpret either my disrespect for you or my giving animals the same right to their life that you wish for yours, and a right not to be tortured and murdered for medical research, into saying that I have "no respect for living things" is beyond me, and I think you should remove that from you sig; in the absence of any logical argument for that statement I can only assume that you are a liar, and it is simple libel. All the more reason for my original statement about you, I think. Stick to the facts, or even your opinion, and you can say what you like about me, rude or otherwise, but making up falsehoods about me to make yourself feel better is not on. (Mind you, I'm still not quite sure what your objection to my rudeness to you is - after all, you did say "You can't insult me". Now you know I can. Dickhead.) Fred -- modified at 11:33 Monday 15th October, 2007
Wow, what a rambling personal attack of a rant! Bet there's a lot of good sig material in that... Seems a bit of an extreme reaction to:
73Zeppelin wrote:
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" - Fred_Smith (on respect for living things)
-
-- modofied-- ok, sorry I misread "on respect for living thigs" as "no respect for living things" I must retract the libel charge. I stand by thr rst though -- end -- Listen, a**hole, I have no objection to your putting my words on your sig - in fact, if anything I am quite content for you to advertise for me the fact that I think you are a sh*thead and wish you'd f*** off and die, but by what twisted logic you interpret either my disrespect for you or my giving animals the same right to their life that you wish for yours, and a right not to be tortured and murdered for medical research, into saying that I have "no respect for living things" is beyond me, and I think you should remove that from you sig; in the absence of any logical argument for that statement I can only assume that you are a liar, and it is simple libel. All the more reason for my original statement about you, I think. Stick to the facts, or even your opinion, and you can say what you like about me, rude or otherwise, but making up falsehoods about me to make yourself feel better is not on. (Mind you, I'm still not quite sure what your objection to my rudeness to you is - after all, you did say "You can't insult me". Now you know I can. Dickhead.) Fred -- modified at 11:33 Monday 15th October, 2007
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
in the absence of any logical argument for that statement I can only assume that you are a liar, and it is simple libel.
If I were on a jury and I read that you opposed animal testing even though it saves human lives, I'd find him not guilty. By the way...[^]
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
How can not wanting to see animals used in medical research equate to "no respect for living things" - whatever your opinion on the subject is? You may think it wrong to give animals the same rights as humans, but that statement of his si still wrong.
-
-- modofied-- ok, sorry I misread "on respect for living thigs" as "no respect for living things" I must retract the libel charge. I stand by thr rst though -- end -- Listen, a**hole, I have no objection to your putting my words on your sig - in fact, if anything I am quite content for you to advertise for me the fact that I think you are a sh*thead and wish you'd f*** off and die, but by what twisted logic you interpret either my disrespect for you or my giving animals the same right to their life that you wish for yours, and a right not to be tortured and murdered for medical research, into saying that I have "no respect for living things" is beyond me, and I think you should remove that from you sig; in the absence of any logical argument for that statement I can only assume that you are a liar, and it is simple libel. All the more reason for my original statement about you, I think. Stick to the facts, or even your opinion, and you can say what you like about me, rude or otherwise, but making up falsehoods about me to make yourself feel better is not on. (Mind you, I'm still not quite sure what your objection to my rudeness to you is - after all, you did say "You can't insult me". Now you know I can. Dickhead.) Fred -- modified at 11:33 Monday 15th October, 2007
-
How can not wanting to see animals used in medical research equate to "no respect for living things" - whatever your opinion on the subject is? You may think it wrong to give animals the same rights as humans, but that statement of his si still wrong.
-
-- modofied-- ok, sorry I misread "on respect for living thigs" as "no respect for living things" I must retract the libel charge. I stand by thr rst though -- end -- Listen, a**hole, I have no objection to your putting my words on your sig - in fact, if anything I am quite content for you to advertise for me the fact that I think you are a sh*thead and wish you'd f*** off and die, but by what twisted logic you interpret either my disrespect for you or my giving animals the same right to their life that you wish for yours, and a right not to be tortured and murdered for medical research, into saying that I have "no respect for living things" is beyond me, and I think you should remove that from you sig; in the absence of any logical argument for that statement I can only assume that you are a liar, and it is simple libel. All the more reason for my original statement about you, I think. Stick to the facts, or even your opinion, and you can say what you like about me, rude or otherwise, but making up falsehoods about me to make yourself feel better is not on. (Mind you, I'm still not quite sure what your objection to my rudeness to you is - after all, you did say "You can't insult me". Now you know I can. Dickhead.) Fred -- modified at 11:33 Monday 15th October, 2007
-
How can not wanting to see animals used in medical research equate to "no respect for living things" - whatever your opinion on the subject is? You may think it wrong to give animals the same rights as humans, but that statement of his si still wrong.
Fred_Smith wrote:
How can not wanting to see animals used in medical research equate to "no respect for living things" - whatever your opinion on the subject is? You may think it wrong to give animals the same rights as humans, but that statement of his si still wrong.
Well I'd say his observation is a bit broad in that you specifically have no respect for humanity (which is a subset of "living things"). Of course, he didn't say "no respect for ALL living things", and since you clearly have no respect for humanity, I'd say that to say you have no respect for that subset of living things makes his statement quite close enough. *Correction. I just read his sig. You misquoted it and attributed your incorrect quote to him, which is quite libelous indeed! And because you're crazy. And not crazy like "Woohoo! That guy is great!" crazy, but like "He and Matthew Faithful must wander the streets aimlessly eating fresh dog poop together" crazy. -- modified at 11:45 Monday 15th October, 2007
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
-- modofied-- ok, sorry I misread "on respect for living thigs" as "no respect for living things" I must retract the libel charge. I stand by thr rst though -- end -- Listen, a**hole, I have no objection to your putting my words on your sig - in fact, if anything I am quite content for you to advertise for me the fact that I think you are a sh*thead and wish you'd f*** off and die, but by what twisted logic you interpret either my disrespect for you or my giving animals the same right to their life that you wish for yours, and a right not to be tortured and murdered for medical research, into saying that I have "no respect for living things" is beyond me, and I think you should remove that from you sig; in the absence of any logical argument for that statement I can only assume that you are a liar, and it is simple libel. All the more reason for my original statement about you, I think. Stick to the facts, or even your opinion, and you can say what you like about me, rude or otherwise, but making up falsehoods about me to make yourself feel better is not on. (Mind you, I'm still not quite sure what your objection to my rudeness to you is - after all, you did say "You can't insult me". Now you know I can. Dickhead.) Fred -- modified at 11:33 Monday 15th October, 2007
Hey look! The Village Idiot is back and he's happy to see me!
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" - Fred_Smith (on respect for living things)
"You don't know me well enough to diagnose me." - Chris-Kaiser (on the synoptic problem) -
Don't be mean to him. He has the arguing ability of a retarded person in a wheelchair posting using Windows Vista's speech recognition feature.
I Have No Username wrote:
Don't be mean to him. He has the arguing ability of a retarded person in a wheelchair posting using Windows Vista's speech recognition feature.
Which is still better than your ability to argue a point which puts you on the level of Fred_Smith!
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" - Fred_Smith (on respect for living things)
"You don't know me well enough to diagnose me." - Chris-Kaiser (on the synoptic problem) -
Hey look! The Village Idiot is back and he's happy to see me!
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" - Fred_Smith (on respect for living things)
"You don't know me well enough to diagnose me." - Chris-Kaiser (on the synoptic problem)If your ability to misinterpret everything you see is typical, no wonder medical research is as retartded as it is (thinking you can mutilate cats to understand human rape, for example - ha bloody ha!) Where do you get:
73Zeppelin wrote:
happy to see me
from? Wisdful thinking, I dare say... must be some variation of Stockholm Syndrome...
-
I Have No Username wrote:
Don't be mean to him. He has the arguing ability of a retarded person in a wheelchair posting using Windows Vista's speech recognition feature.
Which is still better than your ability to argue a point which puts you on the level of Fred_Smith!
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" - Fred_Smith (on respect for living things)
"You don't know me well enough to diagnose me." - Chris-Kaiser (on the synoptic problem) -
If your ability to misinterpret everything you see is typical, no wonder medical research is as retartded as it is (thinking you can mutilate cats to understand human rape, for example - ha bloody ha!) Where do you get:
73Zeppelin wrote:
happy to see me
from? Wisdful thinking, I dare say... must be some variation of Stockholm Syndrome...
For the record, it's my opinion that you're crazy and I don't take you seriously at all. But by all means, feel free to carry on and humiliate yourself further.
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" - Fred_Smith (on respect for living things)
"You don't know me well enough to diagnose me." - Chris-Kaiser (on the synoptic problem) -
Calm down Fred. You will be wanting boxing gloves next :sigh:
Maybe you should reflect on what John said here [^]
Actually, I am a lot calmer than given credit for, but that doesn't matter. So what if I do get angry? Or use the odd four-letter word? The only troublwe with it, as far as I can see, is that it gives others the excuse they need to derail the argument by sidetracking it onto one about anger instead. But it's rather self-righteously pious to say "Oh you've got angry now so that proves you're wrong". And scientific debate requires an open mind. I have rarely come across so many people with such closed minds as on this forum. An awful lot of people here are intellectual snobs who are so convinced of their own intelligence that they can't conceive that they might have something to learn still. I guess all the adulation they get from being "wow a computer programmer" starts to sink in....
-
Actually, I am a lot calmer than given credit for, but that doesn't matter. So what if I do get angry? Or use the odd four-letter word? The only troublwe with it, as far as I can see, is that it gives others the excuse they need to derail the argument by sidetracking it onto one about anger instead. But it's rather self-righteously pious to say "Oh you've got angry now so that proves you're wrong". And scientific debate requires an open mind. I have rarely come across so many people with such closed minds as on this forum. An awful lot of people here are intellectual snobs who are so convinced of their own intelligence that they can't conceive that they might have something to learn still. I guess all the adulation they get from being "wow a computer programmer" starts to sink in....
Fred_Smith wrote:
An awful lot of people here are intellectual snobs who are so convinced of their own intelligence that they can't conceive that they might have something to learn still. I guess all the adulation they get from being "wow a computer programmer" starts to sink in...
You do realize that you were arguing with a guy who has a PhD in physics, right? Perhaps he just has nothing to learn from you.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
An awful lot of people here are intellectual snobs who are so convinced of their own intelligence that they can't conceive that they might have something to learn still. I guess all the adulation they get from being "wow a computer programmer" starts to sink in...
You do realize that you were arguing with a guy who has a PhD in physics, right? Perhaps he just has nothing to learn from you.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Q.E.D.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
An awful lot of people here are intellectual snobs who are so convinced of their own intelligence that they can't conceive that they might have something to learn still. I guess all the adulation they get from being "wow a computer programmer" starts to sink in...
You do realize that you were arguing with a guy who has a PhD in physics, right? Perhaps he just has nothing to learn from you.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
You do realize that you were arguing with a guy who has a PhD in physics, right? Perhaps he just has nothing to learn from you.
Actually, I'm a psychiatrist. I just diagnosed Chris-Kaiser with the synoptic problem! He wasn't very happy about that, though... poor fellow took it rather hard.
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" - Fred_Smith (on respect for living things)
"You don't know me well enough to diagnose me." - Chris-Kaiser (on the synoptic problem) -
Q.E.D.
Red wrote: You do realize that you were arguing with a guy who has a PhD in physics, right? Perhaps he just has nothing to learn from you. Fred_Smith wrote: Q.E.D. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: That's CLASSIC!
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" - Fred_Smith (on respect for living things) "You don't know me well enough to diagnose me." - Chris-Kaiser (on the synoptic problem)
-
Actually, I am a lot calmer than given credit for, but that doesn't matter. So what if I do get angry? Or use the odd four-letter word? The only troublwe with it, as far as I can see, is that it gives others the excuse they need to derail the argument by sidetracking it onto one about anger instead. But it's rather self-righteously pious to say "Oh you've got angry now so that proves you're wrong". And scientific debate requires an open mind. I have rarely come across so many people with such closed minds as on this forum. An awful lot of people here are intellectual snobs who are so convinced of their own intelligence that they can't conceive that they might have something to learn still. I guess all the adulation they get from being "wow a computer programmer" starts to sink in....
Fred_Smith wrote:
I am a lot calmer than given credit for
I will take your word for that.
Fred_Smith wrote:
scientific debate requires an open mind
And within the debate it also requires scientific substance. And most important of all, the concept of "putting brain into gear before engaging mouth". It is somewhat impossible to both listen and shout at the same time.