Terrorist cyclists selfish, mean-spirited, dangerous and aggressive

DRS

"flyingdutch" <flyingdutch.19rndo@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote
in message news:flyingdutch.19rndo@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com
> DRS Wrote:
>> "You're a liar as well as a fool, f***wit.
>
> oh goody. we're back onto the mythical liar thing again
>
> cut the 'f***' . "this is a family show"

Fuck off, Dutchy. You lied and I called you on it and every time you are
stupid enough to bring it up I'll drag up the proof from Google and rub your
nose in it: 4Q45c.48595$u17.21481@fe20.usenetserver.com and
c3ud23$qss$1@lust.ihug.co.nz. This is Usenet, a fact you seem
constitutionally incapable of grasping. Usenet is archived. You cannot
make shit up out of thin air, like you did, and expect to get away with it.
He also lied and I'm calling him on it too. There's nothing the least
mythical about his lies. They, too, are now a matter of record.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

flyingdutch

your links dont work, your 'proof' is non existant, your language getting worse by the post, and if truth be told, youre accusing me of lieing is lieing in itself.
I have never 'made shit up'. something you are only able to refer to with rhetoric, bad language.
Why dont you be a good chap and go to these supposed threads and cut-n-paste them here to settle this once and for all. If you can prove I lied, I'll apologise.
If not, well... I'll blow rhaspberries 'eeen yur jeneraaal, direxeeeeeon'

And just where is johns 'lies' ?

__________________
'ungrounded' Dutch...

DRS

"flyingdutch" <flyingdutch.19rpoz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote
in message news:flyingdutch.19rpoz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com
> DRS Wrote:
>>
>> Fuck off, Dutchy. You lied and I called you on it and every time you
>> are
>> stupid enough to bring it up I'll drag up the proof from Google and
>> rub your
>> nose in it: 4Q45c.48595$u17.21481@fe20.usenetserver.com and
>> c3ud23$qss$1@lust.ihug.co.nz. This is Usenet, a fact you seem
>> constitutionally incapable of grasping. Usenet is archived. You
>> cannot
>> make shit up out of thin air, like you did, and expect to get away
>> with it.
>> He also lied and I'm calling him on it too. There's nothing the
>> least mythical about his lies. They, too, are now a matter of
>> record.
>
> your links dont work, your 'proof' is non existant, your language

Jesus wept. They're Usenet message-ids, not links, and I assure you they
are very much valid.

> getting worse by the post, and if truth be told, youre accusing me of
> lieing is lieing in itself.
> I have never 'made shit up'. something you are only able to refer to
> with rhetoric, bad language.

You did make shit up, you made it up out of thin air, you accused me of
stuff I never did and I used Google to prove it and I'll keep doing it as
long as you are silly enough to pretend it didn't happen.

> Why dont you be a good chap and go to these supposed threads and
> cut-n-paste them here to settle this once and for all. If you can
> prove I lied, I'll apologise.

In your web browser go to Google's news groups search page:
http://groups.google.com.au/advanced_group_search. In the field marked
"Message ID" cut and past one of the message ids I gave (you have to do
message ids one at a time). Hit the "Search" button. Watch and weep.

> If not, well... I'll blow rhaspberries 'eeen yur jeneraaal,
> direxeeeeeon'
>
> And just where is johns 'lies' ?

Here's his most recent: 'Your contributions to the group lately all seem to
revolve around the word "fuckwit"' Blind Freddy can see he's projecting his
own lack of contributions on to me.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

ritcho

Ok, now the thread has been totally derailed, I looked up the message that DRS was talking about. DRS referenced two messages, but the second (inter alia) referred to this one:

Flyingdutch said: (to Hippy, it seems)

"Yes, but you were blocking my way!!!
perhaps I shoulda shouted at you like Drs does to kids on bikepaths..."

And that is all that appears in the message.

I am now supposed to believe that this sequence of allegations of lying stemmed from this message. Perhaps Flyingdutch later claimed to have never said that Drs shouts at kids on bikepaths. Perhaps DRS never shouts at kids on bikepaths. So it is the lie, or it is the proof that counters some other lie. It is impossible to tell from the message itself.

Either way, the offence taken (or given) by the message is trivial compared to the back and forth tirade of abuse that followed. In the true sense of the word, it's a disgrace.

Ritch.

PS. Thanks to DRS for pointing out the advanced groups search with message-id... never really tried that one before...

DRS

"ritcho" <ritcho.19rsxm@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in
message news:ritcho.19rsxm@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com
> DRS Wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> 4Q45c.48595$u17.21481@fe20.usenetserver.com
>>
>> [snip]
>
> Ok, now the thread has been totally derailed, I looked up the message
> that DRS was talking about. DRS referenced two messages, but the
> second (inter alia) referred to this one:

It also mentioned a bunch of other stuff he either made up or twisted beyond
recognition.

> Flyingdutch said: (to Hippy, it seems)
>
> "Yes, but you were blocking my way!!!
> perhaps I shoulda shouted at you like Drs does to kids on
> bikepaths..."
>
> And that is all that appears in the message.

There's a context to that that Dutchy should be all too well aware of (there
was a thread started by someone who saw a cyclist yell at a kid on a
bikepath - it might have been me). I shouted once at a kid who veered
across a bike path when I was overtaking him and he nearly caused me to
crash. Dutchy tries to make out it's my habit. I have a thing about people
trying to misrepresent my position and I told him so. He denied doing it
even when the evidence was put right in front of him. He's been told more
than once everything he posts is stored in Google's archives but he just
doesn't seem to grok what that means.

[...]

> Either way, the offence taken (or given) by the message is trivial
> compared to the back and forth tirade of abuse that followed. In the
> true sense of the word, it's a disgrace.

Um, if you've been paying attention you should know by now that I'm not the
one who keeps bringing it up. He is.

> Ritch.
>
> PS. Thanks to DRS for pointing out the advanced groups search with
> message-id... never really tried that one before...

Teach a man to fish and all that.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

cfsmtb

Our thoughts on this trival matter?

Get a room.

__________________
Noli nothis permittere te terere

flyingdutch

No it didnt DRS
OK, perhaps i dont know Usenet inside out like you and all the different types of features, etc but you claim that it included "a bunch of other stuff"
is pure rhubarb! And that's what youre invective is based on???
It would appear that it is your perception of what i said, as opposed to what i actually said, that got you to arrive at your accusing me of lying

You stated that you once shouted at a kid and later said you would do so again (going on to buy a airzound, WIMHO was a good idea)

i referred to shouting at a kid 'like DRS' cos I you said that is what you did and will continue to do, so i doubt its much of a quantum leap to stereotype you as someone who shouts at kids on bikepaths

How you can call that 'proof' is just unbelieveable

Like i said. If you could prove it i would apologise, but that's hollow
I will not be slandered on this any further

Some people just dont WANT to get along, for lordy's sake, but for the betterment of the form let's try...

__________________
'ungrounded' Dutch...

DRS

"flyingdutch" <flyingdutch.19rzey@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote
in message news:flyingdutch.19rzey@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com
> DRS Wrote:
>>
>> It also mentioned a bunch of other stuff he either made up or twisted
>> beyond
>> recognition.

[...]

> No it didnt DRS
> OK, perhaps i dont know Usenet inside out like you and all the
> different types of features, etc but you claim that it included "a
> bunch of other stuff" is pure rhubarb!

Oh, no it bloody isn't. And that is exactly the kind of dishonesty I object
to. It manifestly refers to several instances. Of course, it would have
made things clearer if you'd left the attributions in like you're supposed
to. This is also my text in that post, quoted from a previous post
(c3rp03$7gf$1@lust.ihug.co.nz):

"I never called Hippy an idiot; I never called Hitchy either stupid or a
fool (although in his case I confess to believing both to be true); I never
called anirm stupid or a fool. You're [sic] stuff up out of thin air yet
again."

All things you accused me of which were not true.

If you want to follow that part of that thread when reading a post in Google
then click on the "View: Complete Thread" link at the upper right-hand
corner of the page.

> And that's what youre invective is based on???

You've been told often enough.

> It would appear that it is your perception of what i said, as opposed
> to what i actually said, that got you to arrive at your accusing me of
> lying
>
> You stated that you once shouted at a kid and later said you would do
> so again (going on to buy a airzound, WIMHO was a good idea)
>
> i referred to shouting at a kid 'like DRS' cos I you said that is what
> you did and will continue to do,

I said: "I only yell at the ones trying to cause an accident." That's
called context.

> so i doubt its much of a quantum leap
> to stereotype you as someone who shouts at kids on bikepaths
>
> How you can call that 'proof' is just unbelieveable

It's perfectly believable when the necessary context is put back in. I told
you I wouldn't put up with being misrepresented and I won't.

> Like i said. If you could prove it i would apologise, but that's
> hollow
> I will not be slandered on this any further

You don't know the meaning of the word.

> Some people just dont WANT to get along, for lordy's sake, but for the
> betterment of the form let's try...

My history in here is very clear. Don't tell lies about me and I won't get
upset at you for telling lies about me.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

flyingdutch

> No it didnt DRS
> OK, perhaps i dont know Usenet inside out like you and all the
> different types of features, etc but you claim that it included "a
> bunch of other stuff" is pure rhubarb![/color]

>Oh, no it bloody isn't. And that is exactly the kind of dishonesty I object
>to. It manifestly refers to several instances.

All of which werent lieing, just your 'interpreation filter' going haywire again

>Of course, it would have
>made things clearer if you'd left the attributions in like you're supposed
>to. ...

Fair nuff. not meant to confuse. just brevity...

>This is also my text in that post, quoted from a previous post
>(c3rp03$7gf$1@lust.ihug.co.nz):
>"I never called Hippy an idiot; I never called Hitchy either stupid or a
>fool (although in his case I confess to believing both to be true); I never
>called anirm stupid or a fool. You're [sic] stuff up out of thin air yet
>again."
>All things you accused me of which were not true.

Strange, cos all 3 commented (later in subsequent threads, private messages and in person) on how much you pissed them off! They certainly read your comments as I did. Maybe its the way other people are interpreting your posts, not the way you think they should be interpreted that starts all this...


>It's perfectly believable when the necessary context is put back in. I told
>you I wouldn't put up with being misrepresented and I won't.

Yes but the same thread includes you stating that kids should not be/ride on paths at all. that was what I originally took you to task on, my perspective being they should be encouraged, not yelled at

>> Like i said. If you could prove it i would apologise, but that's
>> hollow
>> I will not be slandered on this any further[/color]

>You don't know the meaning of the word.

Cmon DRS. thats going too far again


>> Some people just dont WANT to get along, for lordy's sake, but for the
>> betterment of the form let's try...

>My history in here is very clear. Don't tell lies about me and I won't get
>upset at you for telling lies about me.

If it ever happens, gladly :-)
Youre still most welcome on the Leyland Bros ride.
Maybe we can test that 'bigger wheel' theory

__________________
'ungrounded' Dutch...

DRS

"flyingdutch" <flyingdutch.19s4ib@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote
in message news:flyingdutch.19s4ib@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com
>> No it didnt DRS
>> OK, perhaps i dont know Usenet inside out like you and all the
>> different types of features, etc but you claim that it included "a
>> bunch of other stuff" is pure rhubarb!
>
>> Oh, no it bloody isn't. And that is exactly the kind of dishonesty
>> I object to. It manifestly refers to several instances.
>
> All of which werent lieing, just your 'interpreation filter' going
> haywire again[/color]

I said it referred to a bunch of stuff, you said it didn't, I listed the
bunch of stuff it referred to. So whose interpretation is haywire?

>> Of course, it would have
>> made things clearer if you'd left the attributions in like you're
>> supposed to. ...
>
> Fair nuff. not meant to confuse. just brevity...

This is a classic example of why Usenet conventions and standards have
evolved as they have. Attributions matter. If you quote someone then you
are obligated to attribute properly.

>> This is also my text in that post, quoted from a previous post
>> (c3rp03$7gf$1@lust.ihug.co.nz):
>> "I never called Hippy an idiot; I never called Hitchy either stupid
>> or a fool (although in his case I confess to believing both to be
>> true); I never called anirm stupid or a fool. You're [sic] stuff up
>> out of thin air yet again."
>
>> All things you accused me of which were not true.
>
> Strange, cos all 3 commented (later in subsequent threads, private
> messages and in person) on how much you pissed them off!

Even if that is true (claiming support from Private Email is a source of
derision on Usenet since it is untestable without making public that which
was intended to be private, assuming it exists at all) it remains a fact
that I did not do the things you accused me of. And I most sincerely
couldn't give a stuff what Hitchy thinks.

[...]

> Yes but the same thread includes you stating that kids should not
> be/ride on paths at all. that was what I originally took you to task
> on, my perspective being they should be encouraged, not yelled at

That's called a strawman: an argument you make up, attribute to your
opponent, subsequently knock down and preen about how good you are. The
problem is *no-one* ever said kids shouldn't be on bike paths at all.

Once again, here's what I actually said: "If your kids can't keep left then
they shouldn't be riding on the path".

"If they can't or won't do the right thing then they should not be on the
bike paths at all."

"What people are saying in this thread is that kids should keep left and if
they can't or won't then they shouldn't be on the paths in the first place,
which is absolutely spot on."

"Some people need to realise that everybody has responsibilities in a shared
environment and that kids are not exempt."

If anybody cares, the thread is called "why do you ride on a shared path"
(9/3/04).

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?....iprimus.com.au

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?