|
Post by innocent bystander on Feb 28, 2007 19:49:05 GMT -5
I'm waiting on you Larry.
|
|
|
Post by firstborn on Mar 1, 2007 21:30:29 GMT -5
I'm waiting on you Larry. come clean larry, you will feel better ;D
|
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Larry on Mar 2, 2007 10:25:51 GMT -5
I'm waiting on you Larry. come clean larry, you will feel better ;D Firstborn, Come clean about what? I posted and was called a liar. I asked what would be accepted as proof and the discussion ended. What is your suggestion? My feeling at this point is that the only acceptable answer would be to agree to preconceived notions, regardless of the truth.
|
|
Bigger so Larry can see it
Guest
|
Post by Bigger so Larry can see it on Mar 2, 2007 12:57:10 GMT -5
Having previously posted in this thread as Guest "to Larry", I am posting again for the sole purpose of setting the record straight with regard to what I have written previously. I am neither interested in nor will engage in further discussion with the dim-witted, multiple-personality schizophrenic troll known in this thread as "Larry" and known elsewhere on this board by at least a half dozen other names.
In Reply 43, I accused the troll of not answering my previous requests for proof and not answering my previous questions. I then refused to engage in future exchanges with him.
In Reply 46, the troll responded: You requested proof. I asked what you would consider to be proof. I don't know why I expected anything different.
In contrast to the troll's complaint, the following is a selection of my statements from back in Reply 40:
Then are one or both of the following accounts yours? professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=departed professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=janerussell Trolls Response: Ignored and ignored.
When and where did I accuse you? Trolls Response: Ignored and ignored.
And just who do you think I am? Trolls Response: Ignored.
Please tell me what conclusions I jumped to Trolls Response: Ignored.
tell me what is the real truth of the matter Trolls Response: Ignored.
Then prove it. Trolls Response: Attempted to quibble over the degree of proof required rather than just honestly presenting the facts at his disposal.
Then prove it. Trolls Response: Attempted to quibble over the degree of proof required rather than just honestly presenting the facts at his disposal.
I'll believe this when you provide proof. Trolls Response: Attempted to quibble over the degree of proof required rather than just honestly presenting the facts at his disposal.
Show us some proof that what you say is true. Trolls Response: Attempted to quibble over the degree of proof required rather than just honestly presenting the facts at his disposal.
Again (for the benefit of the troll with the short attention span), I have posted the above for the sole purpose of setting the record straight with regard to what I have written previously. This post is not an attempt to further discuss this matter with the troll and all attempts by him to prolong this pointless discussion will be utterly ignored.
|
|
|
Post by looks like on Mar 2, 2007 13:46:07 GMT -5
it looks like you are the one prolonging this pointless topic.
why are you still here? There is a much better forum out there.
|
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Larry on Mar 2, 2007 14:13:53 GMT -5
Please tell me what conclusions I jumped toTrolls Response: Ignored. I wonder why you felt it necessary to answer my response to Firstborn? But again: To look at just one of the incorrect statements posted. Above, whomever is posting said: Please tell me what conclusions I jumped to Trolls Response: Ignored.Of course, I did not ignore this but actually responded with: You concluded that the administrator had hijacked this account. That is false.
I just posted the truth of the matter. I post in threads that I am interested in.One of the complaints seems to be people posting with different names. I believe this is what prompted the incorrect use of "multiple-personality schizophrenic" in the phrase I am neither interested in nor will engage in further discussion with the dim-witted, multiple-personality schizophrenic troll known in this thread as "Larry" and known elsewhere on this board by at least a half dozen other names."However, the poster seems to have no problem posting as any number of different people as an unregistered guest. It makes it difficult to discuss anything.
|
|
|
Post by me not him or him on Mar 3, 2007 20:31:11 GMT -5
I wonder why you felt it necessary to answer my response to Firstborn? He didn't - I did - I aint him. One out of nine is bad. You still got eight to go. So far you've answered 11.1%. That's an F. [/i][/quote] You act like this 'fact' matters but it doesn't. It has nothing to do with question. Could you maybe stick to the topic? Stop changing the subject. Oh yeah? Then where? The complaint was the hijacking <<PLUS>> impersonation. Not posting with different names except for as it applies to hijacking <<PLUS>> impersonation. This to complicated for you to comprehend? Yeah, bout that - the two are often associated with eachother and the reference was a bit vague. Let it go. You gotta get your panties in a bunch over everything here. Jesus! Who here's dollin' about posting other names? As fara as I can see its the hijacking thing that's getting the attention. You're off it left field for sure - catch up girly man.
|
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Larry on Mar 5, 2007 3:14:12 GMT -5
I wonder why you felt it necessary to answer my response to Firstborn? He didn't - I did - I aint him. You change names so often and post under so many different names it is difficult to keep up. Actually, I was just pointing out one of the many errors in the post. I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with your word games. Hijacking or pretending to be a number of different people. Who do you think any of the people you listed impersonated? Themselves? So are the immaculate conception and the birth of Jesus. But they are not related either. The hijacking thing is getting attention from the many post using various names.
|
|
|
Post by to Larry on Mar 5, 2007 12:01:35 GMT -5
Yes Larry, I'm breaking my own rule by writing you.
I thought I'd drop you a quick line to let you know that you seem to have gotten me confused with someone else. As near as I can tell, you've been arguing with two new people who have taken my place in this so-called 'debate'.
I hope the three of you are having fun.
Cheers.
|
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Larry on Mar 5, 2007 13:39:47 GMT -5
Yes Larry, I'm breaking my own rule by writing you. I thought I'd drop you a quick line to let you know that you seem to have gotten me confused with someone else. As near as I can tell, you've been arguing with two new people who have taken my place in this so-called 'debate'. I hope the three of you are having fun. Cheers. Thanks so much for the update. So you did not post reply # 59 ("Bigger so Larry can see it") Or reply #62 ("me not him or him")? I guess someone else is impersonating you. Maybe you could list the posts you did make to clear up the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Breath on Mar 9, 2007 20:43:12 GMT -5
Yes Larry, I'm breaking my own rule by writing you. I thought I'd drop you a quick line to let you know that you seem to have gotten me confused with someone else. As near as I can tell, you've been arguing with two new people who have taken my place in this so-called 'debate'. I hope the three of you are having fun. Cheers. Thanks so much for the update. So you did not post reply # 59 ("Bigger so Larry can see it") Or reply #62 ("me not him or him")? I guess someone else is impersonating you. Maybe you could list the posts you did make to clear up the confusion. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. The "multi-name" poster doesn't like to be too specific.
|
|
|
Post by no baiting on Mar 10, 2007 10:05:20 GMT -5
get a life man
why don't the two of you find somewhere else to fight
or maybe he/she moved on and you should to?
|
|
|
Post by Second thought on Mar 11, 2007 12:20:42 GMT -5
get a life man why don't the two of you find somewhere else to fight or maybe he/she moved on and you should to? Who has moved on? You continue to post here. Perhaps you should repost the message about not posting here any more! What a joke!
|
|
|
Post by I enjoy on Mar 12, 2007 0:56:00 GMT -5
arguments as much as the next 2x2 but is anybody following this?
|
|
|
Post by Well you are on Mar 12, 2007 3:06:34 GMT -5
arguments as much as the next 2x2 but is anybody following this? You seem to be following along. On this page alone I see a number of posts coming from your keyboard!
|
|
|
Post by just curious on Mar 12, 2007 20:59:25 GMT -5
I have E-mailed those in charge of this message board and have asked them to respond to what I and many others have witnessed. Members( Hijack) being brought back out of no where to respond to a view to make it look like many share it. Sham,scam ,lie deceit. What's the latest? Did they respond?
|
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Larry on Mar 13, 2007 8:16:49 GMT -5
I have E-mailed those in charge of this message board and have asked them to respond to what I and many others have witnessed. Members( Hijack) being brought back out of no where to respond to a view to make it look like many share it. Sham,scam ,lie deceit. What's the latest? Did they respond? There was a post that claimed to be a response from ProBoards. It appears to be a fabrication. nitro did post once and stated that ProBoards had requested the IP of some poster or another but that also seems to have been a fabrication. The complaint that accounts are being used "...to respond to a view to make it look like many share it..." does not carry a lot of weight given that the unregistered posters use multiple names to make it look like there are many who share their views. You be the judge.
|
|
|
Post by James44 on Mar 13, 2007 11:35:20 GMT -5
There was a post that claimed to be a response from ProBoards. It appears to be a fabrication. This what you want to beleive or what you know for fact. Proof?
The complaint that accounts are being used "...to respond to a view to make it look like many share it..." does not carry a lot of weight given that the unregistered posters use multiple names to make it look like there are many who share their views. This is excusing one person actions because another is doing it. If a registered user cheats on his taxes is he justified because an unregistered user is doing the same? I'm sure some unregistered guests post using different names but that's not the issue. The issue is that registered guests post using different names (accounts).
You be the judge. I don't have enough information for that but you seem to so tell us what proof you have. Why you think most everyone in this thread is the same person. Sound kind of nutty to me. Proof for your conspiracy?
|
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Larry on Mar 13, 2007 13:33:42 GMT -5
There was a post that claimed to be a response from ProBoards. It appears to be a fabrication.This what you want to beleive or what you know for fact. Proof? Judging from the language in the reply and the fact that several phrases in the response use terminology that were used by the people who were concerned about the problem, I believe it is a fraud. Actually, it is just the opposite. You are, in effect, saying that it is not OK for the Registered poster to cheat on their taxes but it is OK for unregistered users to cheat. Perhaps you can explain why it is OK for unregistered guests to post assuming many different identities, to give the illusion there are many people concerned about an issue but not for registered posters to do the same. If you believe posting under multiple names is wrong, it is wrong for both registered and unregistered posters. But since you post under a variety of different names I am assuming you feel it is not wrong. I don't think every poster in this thread is the same Just some of them. What proof would you like?
|
|
|
Post by James44 on Mar 13, 2007 15:19:01 GMT -5
Judging from the language in the reply and the fact that several phrases in the response use terminology that were used by the people who were concerned about the problem, I believe it is a fraud. Ok I didn't see it but I'm not looking for a reason not to beleive it.
Actually, it is just the opposite. You are, in effect, saying that it is not OK for the Registered poster to cheat on their taxes but it is OK for unregistered users to cheat. I didn't say unregistered users were right to do it but you keep flipping the argument to avoid dealing with the real issue. One person posting as more than one person to make there argument seem more popular is wrong whether your registered or not. I use multiple unregistered names, but not to fake popular opinion. I stick to one name in a thread.
Perhaps you can explain why it is OK for unregistered guests to post assuming many different identities, to give the illusion there are many people concerned about an issue but not for registered posters to do the same. I won't explain it is OK because it is NOT OK. Can you explain why it is OK for a registered user to do it when a non-registered user shouldn't?
If you believe posting under multiple names is wrong, it is wrong for both registered and unregistered posters. Do you beleive it is wrong? I beleive its wrong to do it to fake popular opinion!
But since you post under a variety of different names I am assuming you feel it is not wrong. Your answers will be educational. (wink)
What proof would you like? Everything you got! I wanto see it like you do.
|
|
|
Post by give it up james on Mar 13, 2007 20:04:04 GMT -5
You might as well throw in the towel, James44, because Larry's been asked these questions before and he found a way to avoid them.
Diversionary tactics are the hallmark of a good 2x2 like Larry/Jennie/Jane/etc etc etc...
|
|
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by on Mar 13, 2007 20:31:29 GMT -5
Damn, someone hijacked my name!
|
|
|
Post by Face it on Mar 13, 2007 23:08:58 GMT -5
You might as well throw in the towel, James44, because Larry's been asked these questions before and he found a way to avoid them. Diversionary tactics are the hallmark of a good 2x2 like Larry/Jennie/Jane/etc etc etc... This is a public message board. Finding out who is posting is not brain surgery.
|
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Larry on Mar 14, 2007 14:34:51 GMT -5
You might as well throw in the towel, James44, because Larry's been asked these questions before and he found a way to avoid them. Diversionary tactics are the hallmark of a good 2x2 like Larry/Jennie/Jane/etc etc etc... This is a public message board. Finding out who is posting is not brain surgery. I know, but wasn't it interesting to see all the posts about integrity, honesty, lies, and complaints about people posting under different names? I would certainly say it was the case of many posts originating at a single source trying to make it look like there was a crowd. Larry
|
|
|
Post by two way street on Mar 14, 2007 15:04:30 GMT -5
wasn't it interesting to see all the posts about integrity, honesty, lies, and complaints about people posting under different names? I would certainly say it was the case of many posts originating at a single source trying to make it look like there was a crowd. Larry Pot, meet kettle.
|
|
|
Post by Still on Mar 14, 2007 15:28:35 GMT -5
wasn't it interesting to see all the posts about integrity, honesty, lies, and complaints about people posting under different names? I would certainly say it was the case of many posts originating at a single source trying to make it look like there was a crowd. Larry Pot, meet kettle. wasn't it interesting to see all the posts about integrity, honesty, lies, and complaints about people posting under different names? I would certainly say it was the case of many posts originating at a single source trying to make it look like there was a crowd. Larry Pot, meet kettle. But I think we all enjoyed 'give it up James' replying to 'James44' as if it was someone else. And who could forget this: I thought I'd drop you a quick line to let you know that you seem to have gotten me confused with someone else. As near as I can tell, you've been arguing with two new people who have taken my place in this so-called 'debate'.
I hope the three of you are having fun.But to give the benefit of the doubt, there could be several people using a single system or any number of people could be using the same proxy. Still, it seems odd that they all would have the same software and identical versions of various components installed. Makes me think of something someone (I wonder who) posted regarding lightning striking the same tree multiple times in the same forest. (That would be reply 34 in this thread) Of course, this is all just speculation.
|
|
|
Post by pokerface on Mar 14, 2007 19:14:25 GMT -5
I'm calling your bluff Larry/Jane/Jennie.
You're full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by whos who on Mar 14, 2007 20:16:26 GMT -5
34 wasn't me but 80 was!
|
|