Text 23675, 140 rader
Skriven 2015-04-17 17:17:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MARK LEWIS
Ärende: Fidonews Vol 32 no 15 Pag
=================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Area: 27-ALL-POLITICS  Message Number: 981  Date: 03-21-15
From: MARK LEWIS
To: TIM RICHARDSON
Subject: The Evil Dwarf--Jarrett
----------------------------------------------------------------------

\|||/
(o o)
/----ooO--(_)---------\
|         Please        |
|     don't feed the    |
|        TROLLs!!       |
\--------------Ooo----/
|  |  |
-- --
|| ||
ooO Ooo

)\/(ark

* Origin:  (1:3634/12)

(o o)
/----ooO--(_)---------\
On 04-15-15, MARK LEWIS said to MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST:

ML>On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Joe Delahaye:

MvdV> In this particular case, their was plenty of reason to supsect
MvdV> that the information that Roy was "OK" was wrong.

MvdV> 1) He stopped posting.

ML>yeah, and i've gone for a year or more without posting... so what? no one
ML>came looking for me...

MvdV> 2) We knew tha he had cancer, terminal cancer.

ML>no we didn't... this was not public knowledge... if it had been, certainly
ML>some would have tried to use it against him but the arguments and fighting
ML>with him kept on as they always had...

MvdV> 3) He did not respond to e-mailand to phone calls.

ML>i didn't either when i was away for a year plus... so what??

MvdV> 4) His mailer went off-line

ML>all of my mailers go offline from time to time... they certainly did more
ML>than once in the year+ that i was "away"... no one tried to even bother
ML>about finding out what happened to me during that time so all of these
ML>arguments are pure crap and bullshit...

MvdV> That were some pretty strong indications that Roy was not "OK".

ML>and yet it took direct confrontation with me to bring out some parts of
ML>why i was gone for a time and responding as angrily as i was... yet, roy
ML>got none of that... i guess being an asshole make one more special??

MV>> Or so she says. But why should we believe her? Anyway, the "he
MV>> will be back" was her own addition. Or at least according to her
MV>> own statement. Which you may or not believe to be fact.

JD> So given the information she had,

MvdV> Claims to have had....

ML>phuck off...

JD> would you not have come to the same conclusion?  I certainly would
JD> have.

MvdV> I certainly would not have accepted it at face value.

ML>because why? you're the almighty scientist who doesn't accept anything
ML>without absolute proof? guess what... your proof isn't always as absolute
ML>or clean as you desire it to be...

MV>> Then we have a serious cultural difference. Again. Here ignorance
MV>> is no excuse. False info is false info. If you buy a stolen car
MV>> from someone and sell it again, it is fencing. Period. You don't
MV>> get away with claiming the person who sold you the car told you
MV>> it was not stolen.

JD> Why is that?  I the  timeline is off by a week or so, and is mis
JD> remembered does it make the information false?
JD> The only thing that would be wrong, would be the timeline.

MvdV> Roy had already been given up by the doctors in October.

ML>proof? this was not public knowledge... roy certainly didn't post about it
ML>anywhere... at best one might take certain changes in his posting habits
ML>and formats into account but there was nothing forewarning about the

ML>end... MvdV> Only a pathologial optimist would label that as "OK". So even
ML>if MvdV> the timeline was not of by a week but by many month, it still
MvdV> does not scan.

ML>apparently you've been mislead again... perhaps you might try painting
ML>with a different paint? or maybe smoking something new?

MV>> If what you say is true - and I am not prepaired to take your
MV>> word for it - it means that we can never trust info coming your
MV>> side because if it turns out to be wrong, you guys can always get
MV>> away with claiming that you were misinformed.

JD> Notice I said 'seem to think differently'  It does not mean at all
JD> what you write however.  You have this affinity of always wanting
JD> concrete proof before you believe anything.

MvdV> And this incident once again confirms that startegy is a good
MvdV> strategy.

ML>not...

JD>  hat is not always possible.

MvdV> In that case, I keep an open mind and defer any conclusions.

ML>riiiiight... an open mind wouldn't question the possibility of life after
ML>death or reincarnation or even the possibilty of life on other worlds...
ML>you've questioned at least two of those three within the last few weeks...

ML>)\/(ark

ML>* Origin:  (1:3634/12)

JD>>> Started that way. but no more.

MV>> Still ongoing...

JD> Tim is still posting that crap, yes.  Mark is not




---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail  Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org  (1:123/140)