General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

dreck nash is a crybaby liar

Usual Suspect · 2004-05-23T23:46:00+00:00

Dreck now claims he only snips name-calling. Consider the following. The first is a post to which Dreck responded. The second is his response. Compare what parts of my post he left intact. Click on the "complete thread" link and compare what little he left from ANY of the posts which he replied. http://snipurl.com/6kzz http://snipurl.com/6l01 There was *no* name-calling in any of that. See also http://snipurl.com/6l04 for an example of how Dreck took me completely out of context to make his pretext. Starting with Dreck... ------ Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool. [I replied:] Note your snip, [censored]. That statement was qualified by what followed. Stop taking things out of context to make a pretext. RESTORE: The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much limited to his choice to sell in the free market in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions are borne of prevailing market conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people concerned about pesticide use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will only do that if there's a market for such effort so he can profit from it. END RESTORE What part of *that* do you specifically object? ------ He never answered the question. Instead, the fat clown completely snipped it and ended his reply from the above post with this (starting and ending with your unethical snipping to take others out of context): [Dreck:] I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will. I noted as much [Dreck:] Good. ---- See last post at: http://snipurl.com/6l05 -------- The line that Dreck edited contained NO name-calling. I *actually* wrote (before he edited it down to suit his agenda): I noted as much about autonomy in what followed. Next time note your snip about it. Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts, except for name-calling. He is a proven liar, and he's a baby who dishes out a lot of [censored] but cannot take it when others return the favor.

Started by Usual Suspect · 23 May 2004 · Last activity 23 May 2004 · 7 posts · 375 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postdreck nash is a crybaby liarUsual Suspect · 23 May 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–7Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #7Ipse Dixit · 23 May 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 23 May 2004
Last activity: 23 May 2004
Original author: Usual Suspect
Posts: 7
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 375
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #1

Dreck now claims he only snips name-calling. Consider the
following.
The first is a post to which Dreck responded. The second is
his response. Compare what parts of my post he left intact.
Click on the "complete thread" link and compare what little
he left from ANY of the posts which he replied.
snipurl.com6kzz snipurl.com6l01
There was *no* name-calling in any of that. See also
snipurl.com6l04 for an example of how Dreck took me
completely out of context to make his pretext.
Starting with Dreck...
------
Quoted message said:
Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.
[I replied:] Note your snip, [censored]. That statement was
qualified by what followed. Stop taking things out of
context to make a pretext.
RESTORE: The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much limited
to his choice to sell in the free market in the first place.
Beyond that, his decisions are borne of prevailing market
conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people
concerned about pesticide use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but
they will only do that if there's a market for such effort
so he can profit from it. END RESTORE
What part of *that* do you specifically object?
------
He never answered the question. Instead, the fat clown
completely snipped it and ended his reply from the above
post with this (starting and ending with your unethical
snipping to take others out of context):
[Dreck:]
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will.
Quoted message said:
I noted as much
[Dreck:] Good.
----
See last post at: snipurl.com6l05
--------
The line that Dreck edited contained NO name-calling. I
*actually* wrote (before he edited it down to suit his
agenda): I noted as much about autonomy in what followed.
Next time note your snip about it.
Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts, except for
name-calling. He is a proven liar, and he's a baby who
dishes out a lot of [censored] but cannot take it when others
return the favor.

Report
Ipse Dixit
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #2

[removed newsgroup definitions which would've made
responding to this post impossible. Another dishonest tactic
by desperate suspect]
usual suspect said:
Dreck now claims he only snips name-calling.
No. There are other things I snip away such as the things
I've already dealt with, and the childish name- calling. The
point I'm raising here with you is your EDITING of your
opponents posts before replying to them, and your subsequent
lying while trying to deny it, and these issues are entirely
different to this futile diversion of my snipping.
Follow this link tinyurl.com2ox8r and it's short
thread from the beginning and you'll see that you edited
entire sentences of my posts before making your replies to
them. I snipped a few of your childish rants, but that
doesn't give you the excuse to edit my whole sentences in
return. You're unethical and a *damned* liar, "christian."
Explain why you lied concerning the editing of your
opponent's sentences, "christian."

Report
Ray
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #3

"usual suspect" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Dreck now claims he only snips name-calling. Consider the
following.
The first is a post to which Dreck responded. The second
is his response. Compare what parts of my post he left
intact. Click on the "complete

thread"
Quoted message said:
link and compare what little he left from ANY of the posts
which he

replied.
Quoted message said:

snipurl.com6kzz snipurl.com6l01
There was *no* name-calling in any of that. See also

snipurl.com6l04 for
Quoted message said:
an example of how Dreck took me completely out of context
to make his

pretext.
Quoted message said:

Starting with Dreck...
------
Quoted message said:
Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous,
fool.
[I replied:] Note your snip, [censored]. That statement was
qualified by what followed.

Stop
Quoted message said:
taking things out of context to make a pretext.
RESTORE: The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much
limited to his choice to sell

in the
Quoted message said:
free market in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions
are borne of prevailing market conditions. Farmers are
free to niche market to people concerned about pesticide
use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will

only do
Quoted message said:
that if there's a market for such effort so he can profit
from it. END RESTORE
What part of *that* do you specifically object?
------
He never answered the question. Instead, the fat clown
completely snipped

it and
Quoted message said:
ended his reply from the above post with this (starting
and ending with

your
Quoted message said:
unethical snipping to take others out of context):
[Dreck:]
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free
will.

Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I noted as much
[Dreck:] Good.
----
See last post at: snipurl.com6l05
--------
The line that Dreck edited contained NO name-calling. I
*actually* wrote

(before
Quoted message said:
he edited it down to suit his agenda): I noted as much
about autonomy in what followed. Next time note your snip
about it.
Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts, except
for name-calling.

He is
Quoted message said:
a proven liar, and he's a baby who dishes out a lot of
[censored] but cannot

take
Quoted message said:
it when others return the favor.
Sounds like you are doing the crying:-)
Like I've said many a time, you can dish it out, but you
can't take it.

Report
Ipse Dixit
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #4

On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:24:30 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" <[email hidden]> wrote:
[..]
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts, except
for name-calling. He is a proven liar, and he's a baby
who dishes out a lot of [censored] but cannot take it when
others return the favor.
Sounds like you are doing the crying:-)
Like I've said many a time, you can dish it out, but you
can't take it.
This whine about not following a Usenet protocol to note
snips is merely a dodge from the real issue concerning
his unethical editing of opponent's posts before
replying to them.
The real point I'm raising here is his EDITING and the lies
while trying to deny it.
Follow this link tinyurl.com2ox8r and it's short
thread from the beginning and you'll see that he edited
entire sentences of my posts before making his replies to
them. I've snipped a few of his childish rants, but that
doesn't give him the excuse to edit my whole sentences in
return. He's unethical and a *damned* liar.

Report
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #5

Quoted message said:
[removed newsgroup definitions which would've made
responding to this post impossible. Another dishonest
tactic by desperate suspect]
Liar. You could still respond to it with that group listed.
<...>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Dreck now claims he only snips name-calling.
No. There are other things I snip away such as the things
I've already dealt with,
You didn't deal with what I wrote, dog-abusing [censored], you
edited down my reply to what YOU wanted me to say. That's
dishonest and unethical. Stop whining when anyone does the
same in return.
<...

Report
Usual Suspect
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #6

<...>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts, except
for name-calling. He is a proven liar, and he's a baby
who dishes out a lot of [censored] but cannot take it when
others return the favor.
Sounds like you are doing the crying:-)
Like I've said many a time, you can dish it out, but you
can't take it.
He has a point, Ray. I've been snipping everyone's posts
to take everyone out of context for so long that it's a
wonder anyone bothers with me anymore.
Like I said before, two (or more!!) can play your [censored]
little game. Stop altering the gist of what others write and
they might stop returning your sleazy
dogs.
<...

Report
Ipse Dixit
Archived post

23 May 2004, 23:46 UTC #7

usual suspect said:
<...>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts, except
>for name-calling. He is a proven liar, and he's a baby
>who dishes out a lot of [censored] but cannot take it when
>others return the favor.
Sounds like you are doing the crying:-)
Like I've said many a time, you can dish it out, but you
can't take it.
He has a point, Ray. I've been snipping everyone's posts
to take everyone out of context for so long that it's a
wonder anyone bothers with me anymore.
Like I said before
I didn't write that above sentence. You just rewrote it
before making a stupid reply. []

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread