Re: Latest RAHE Moderator Questionable Justification For RefusingMy Posts

[dave weil]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 08:16:42 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
wrote:

>
>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>> On 8/9/03 21:06, in article , "Arny
>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> > I've got proof that not even the RAHE moderator email systems are
>reliable -
>> > one of the moderators (yup, the same one who likes to gratuitously trash
>my
>> > posts) refused the same post three times. I can prove I sent it only
>once.
>>
>>
>> Crybaby.
>>
>Forgery by Brian L. McCarty.
>

Well, it was just as stupid as *your* recent posts, so it was a
*clever* forgery.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 08:16:42 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ws.com...
>>> On 8/9/03 21:06, in article ,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've got proof that not even the RAHE moderator email systems are
>>>> reliable - one of the moderators (yup, the same one who likes to
>>>> gratuitously trash my posts) refused the same post three times. I
>>>> can prove I sent it only once.
>>>
>>>
>>> Crybaby.
>>>
>> Forgery by Brian L. McCarty.
>>
>
> Well, it was just as stupid as *your* recent posts, so it was a
> *clever* forgery.

Consider the fact Weil, that your posts are so stupid that nobody would ever
bother to forge 'em!

[dave weil]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:10:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 08:16:42 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>> ws.com...
>>>> On 8/9/03 21:06, in article ,
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've got proof that not even the RAHE moderator email systems are
>>>>> reliable - one of the moderators (yup, the same one who likes to
>>>>> gratuitously trash my posts) refused the same post three times. I
>>>>> can prove I sent it only once.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Crybaby.
>>>>
>>> Forgery by Brian L. McCarty.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it was just as stupid as *your* recent posts, so it was a
>> *clever* forgery.
>
>Consider the fact Weil, that your posts are so stupid that nobody would ever
>bother to forge 'em!

No, I'm afraid that I can'tconsider that, especially since you
oftentimes don't even know what constitutes a forgery.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:10:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> Consider the fact Weil, that your posts are so stupid that nobody
>> would ever bother to forge 'em!

> No, I'm afraid that I can't consider that, especially since you
> oftentimes don't even know what constitutes a forgery.

Very bad logic, Weil. Whether it would be worthwhile for someone to try to
forge a post from you is irrelevant to whether or not you and I agree about
what a forgery is.

Fact is people have tried to forge posts from me with various levels of
sophistication many times. AFAIK, nobody has ever tried to forge a post from
you, Weil.

Nobody tries to forge $3 bills, but they sure do try to forge a lot of
larger-denomination bills.

Same difference.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

> No, I'm afraid that I can'tconsider that, especially since you
> oftentimes don't even know what constitutes a forgery.

SLAM!

One day, somebody should go back through the archive and count up
all the obvious false names and sockpuppets that Krooger has
treated as sincere posters, as well as all the sincere posters
whom Krooger has accused of being "sockpuppets". I'll bet Mr. ****
doesn't even believe Paul Bamborough is who he says he is.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 15:15:57 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>> No, I'm afraid that I can'tconsider that, especially since you
>> oftentimes don't even know what constitutes a forgery.
>
>SLAM!

DUNK!

>One day, somebody should go back through the archive and count up
>all the obvious false names and sockpuppets that Krooger has
>treated as sincere posters, as well as all the sincere posters
>whom Krooger has accused of being "sockpuppets". I'll bet Mr. ****
>doesn't even believe Paul Bamborough is who he says he is.

Maybe not under *that* spelling...

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>> No, I'm afraid that I can'tconsider that, especially since you
>> oftentimes don't even know what constitutes a forgery.
>
> SLAM!
>
> One day, somebody should go back through the archive and count up
> all the obvious false names and sockpuppets that Krooger has
> treated as sincere posters, as well as all the sincere posters
> whom Krooger has accused of being "sockpuppets".

Sue me for not being in on as many conspiracies as you have been, Middius.
When it comes to lies and deceptions, I'm happy to bow to your
accomplishments, such as they are.

>I'll bet Mr. **** doesn't even believe Paul Bamborough is who he says he
is.

All I can say is that given his obvious mental degradation over his tarry
here on RAO, the poor devil must be having ministrokes, or something like
them.