Linux-Advocacy Digest #86, Volume #28 Sat, 29 Jul 00 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Pestov lie-gest, volume 1 (Tholen) ("Slava Pestov")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pestov lie-gest, volume 1 (Tholen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:07:16 +1000
In today's Bennett digest, Eric Bennett, aka Tholenbot, has trouble
identifying himself, denies his lies when the evidence indicates to
the contrary, and continues to engage in redudancy and hypocrisy.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <Mssg5.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In today's Bennett digest, Eric Bennett, aka Tholenbot, lies at least
>> 12 times, and repeatedly denies the truth, while continuing to engage
>> in pontification while hypocritically claiming that I do.
Note: no response.
>> >> The thread branched in two, Eric. I merged the two branches, Eric.
>> >
>> > Illogical,
>>
>> Why?
>
> "Restoring" more context, eh Slava? See immediately below.
Illogical.
>> > given that you admit both branches were part of the same thread.
>>
>> Correct.
>
> Your use of redundancy is unnecessary.
How ironic, coming from someone who routinely engages in redundancy:
tholenbot] Incorrect.
tholenbot] Incorrect.
tholenbot] Incorrect.
tholenbot] Incorrect.
tholenbot] Incorrect.
tholenbot] Incorrect.
>> > Therefore, your action was not a "merging of the two threads".
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> Liar.
How predictable you resort to invective when faced with a logical
argument.
>> > Liar.
>>
>> How predictable you resort to invective when faced with a logical
>> argument.
>
> It's the truth, Slava. You lied.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >> Typical invective.
>> >
>> > Incorrect. See above.
>>
>> More proof by irrelevant reference, Eric?
>
> If you had seen above, you would already know the answer to that
> question, Slava.
Incorrect, as I have in fact seen the above, but still cannot see
an answer to your question.
>> >> Irrelevant.
>> >
>> > How ironic.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Irrelevant.
How ironic, coming from someone who once wrote:
"Why?"
>> >> Incorrect.
>> >
>> > Typical pontification.
>>
>> How ironic.
>
> Incorrect.
On the contrary, your remark was rather ironic, given that you accuse me
of engaging in pontification when you do it on a regular basis.
>> > Where is your substantiation? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>>
>> My substantiation was there all along, until you snipped it, in typical
>> Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>
> What substantiation did I allegedly "snip"?
Check the archive, Eric.
>> >> How typical you resort to invective when faced with a logical
>> >> argument.
>> >
>> > Non sequitur, given the absence of a logical argument on your part.
>>
>> My logical argument was there all along, until you snipped it, in
>> typical Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>
> More redundancy. How predictable. Don't you have anything novel to
> say, Slava?
Typical invective, laced with irony.
>> >> Irrelevant.
>> >
>> > How ironic.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Even more redundancy. See above.
How ironic.
>> >> Irrelevant, given that none of the material was relevant to proving
>> >> the claim in question.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> The burden of proof is yours, Slava, since you made the incorrect claim
> that "none of the material was relevant to proving the claim in
> question".
How typical that you snipped the material in question, now that you've
realised it contains evidence that may be used against you.
>> >> I see you still haven't noted the difference between implication and
>> >> inferrence.
>> >
>> > Illogical. It is because I recognize the difference that I asked the
>> > question, Slava.
>>
>> What alleged "question"?
>
> Haven't you been paying attention?
"More redundancy."
>> How ironic.
>
> What is "ironic"?
How typical that you snipped the material in question, now that you've
realised it contains evidence that may be used against you.
>> >> > The proof is your claim that my answer was incorrect.
>> >
>> > Note: no logical response.
>>
>> My logical response was there all along, until you snipped it, in
>> typical Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>
> Prove it.
Self-evident. Of course, anyone with decent usenet comprehension skills
would recognize that fact.
>> >> Still unable to answer a simple question logically, Eric?
>> >
>> > See what I mean?
>>
>> Irrelevant. Meanwhile, where is your logical answer? Why? Nowhere to be
>> seen!
>
> Illogical.
Your continuing inability to provide a logical answer is indeed illogical.
>> >> On the contrary, my claim is quite correct. Of course, anyone with
>> >> open eyes would recognize that fact.
>> >
>> > On the contrary, many people worldwide have their eyes open and do
>> > not recognize this fact.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> After you prove your claim that "anyone with open eyes would recognize
> that fact", I will do so.
I have already proven my claim, Eric. Predictably enough, you snipped it,
in typical Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>> >> How ironic, coming from someone who routines fails to pay attention.
>> >
>> > "routines fails to pay attention"? How rich!
>>
>> It was a typo, Eric.
>
> Irrelevant.
Illogical, given your remark above.
>> >> Feldercarb.
>> >
>> > Typical invective.
>>
>> The truth is not invective, Eric.
>
> Irrelevant, given that "Feldercarb" is not "the truth".
Incorrect, given that the truth about some people, like you, is indeed
Feldercarb.
>> >> My eyes are already open, Eric. How predictable you fail to
>> >> comprehend that fact.
>> >
>> > On the contrary.
>>
>> See what I mean?
>
> Enlightenment comes from within, grasshopper.
Typical non-answer.
>> >> More lies.
>> >
>> > Prove it.
>>
>> You claimed:
>>
>> EB] I made no illogical claim.
>
> What alleged "EB"?
EB == Eric Bennett == tholenbot. How typical you fail to recognize that
fact.
>> When in fact, you did:
>>
>> EB] The context is your entertainment, Slava.
>>
>> Hence the lie.
>
> Impossible, given that I am not "EB".
Liar. See above.
> Your own statement is therefore a
> lie. Hypocrite.
Illogical, given that I proved my statement is the truth.
>> >> On the contrary.
>> >
>> > Illogical.
>>
>> More lies.
>
> Yes, coming from you.
Illogical, given that I did not write the lie above.
>> You claimed:
>
> See what I mean? More lies.
Did you bother to read the entire post before replying, Eric?
>> EB] Seeing things that aren't there again, Slava?
>>
>> To which I replied:
>>
>> SP] On the contrary.
>>
>> Which is not illogical at all, given that you haven't provided any
>> evidence that I am seeing things that aren't there.
>
> See what I mean? More lies.
Then where is your evidence that I am "seeing things that aren't there"?
Why, nowhere to be seen!
>> >> Do you always get your enlightenment from illogic, Eric?
>> >
>> > Also illogical.
>>
>> How ironic, given that I have already proven two of your lies, Eric.
>
> On the contrary, you lied twice, and this is a third lie. Trying to
> beat Chris Pott's amazing number of lies in a single post, Slava?
Illogical, as Chris Pott's number of lies is hardly "amazing", and also
illogical, given that I am not lying.
>> >> Incorrect. It is evidence to the contrary.
>> >
>> > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>>
>> Where?
>
> See what I mean?
No.
>> >> On the contrary, quite logical. Of course, someone who takes logic
>> >> lessons from Ian "master of illogic" Haakmat would not know that.
>> >
>> > Typical invective. Does the use of incorrect names "entertain" you,
>> > Slava? Taking posting lessons from Mark Kelley again, Slava?
>>
>> Typical invective. Meanwhile, I see you still haven't noted the logic
>> of my statement. How predictable.
>
> I see you didn't answer either of my questions. Of course, that is to
> be expected from you.
You based the questions on an incorrect presumption, hence they are
irrelevant, and no answer is necessary.
>> >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>> >
>> > Obviously not, Slava.
>>
>> More lies. Now you're up to 3 lies in a single post. Here is the proof
>> of your lie:
>
> A fourth lie.
How ironic.
>> You made the following claim:
>>
>> EB] Haven't you been paying attention?
>>
>> To which I replied:
>>
>> SP] On the contrary.
>>
>> Your illogical response demostrates your reading comprehension
>> problems, given that I never made this alleged "admission":
>>
>> EB] So, you admit you haven't been paying attention.
>
> Unable to curb your tendency to lie, eh Slava "Master of Lies" Pestov?
Incorrect and irrelevant, given that I am not lying. That, I leave
to you.
>> >> Irrelevant.
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> You made the following claim:
>>
>> EB] Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
>
> Liar. I am not "EB". Five lies so far, Slava.
I have already proven that you are "EB". See above.
>> Which is irrelevant, given that you made it on an incorrect basis. For
>> proof, see above.
>>
>> >> Illogical, given that you haven't identified the "claim".
>> >
>> > Irrelevant, given that you made the claim.
>>
>> I see you still haven't identified this alleged "claim", Eric. No
>> surprise there.
>
> Irrelevant, given that you made the claim.
I see now that you've realised your former argument is unattanable, you
are resorting to semantic-rich arguments in an attempt to obfuscate the
truth. How typical.
>> >> Illogical.
>> >
>> > See what I mean?
>>
>> No.
>
> Illogical.
On the contary.
>> >> I cannot answer an illogical question, Eric.
>> >
>> > Non sequitur.
>>
>> So you admit your question was non sequitur, Eric?
>
> I cannot answer an illogical question, Slava.
Irrelevant, given that I did not ask one.
>> >> I wasn't trying to surprise you, Eric.
>> >
>> > I never claimed that you were, Slava.
>>
>> A fourth lie. Your remark:
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who has now lied six times in a single
> post.
A second lie. I have not lied "six times in a single post", Eric.
That, I leave to you.
>> EB] No surpise there.
>>
>> Indicates that you were expecting to be surprised.
>
> On the contrary, your statement indicates the increasing severity of
> your reading comprehension problems.
Pontification doesn't change the truth, Eric.
>> >> You just replied to the evidence. How predictable you fail to see
>> >> that fact.
>> >
>> > Impossible, given that you never provided any evidence.
>>
>> A fifth lie. The evidence was the following admission:
>>
>> SP] It was a typo, Eric.
>>
>> Because I typed "fact" instead of "claim" in the following statement:
>>
>> SP] Prove that this fact exists, if you think you can.
>
> Seven lies.
Incorrect, given that I have provided evidence of my typo.
SP] It was a typo, Eric.
>> >> See above.
>> >
>> > Hypocrite.
>> >
>> > "Classical circular reasoning. I have already seen the above, and it
>> > contains nothing of relevence to the current argument."
>>
>> I only say "see above" when the above material is indeed relevant to
>> the discussion; unlike you, who seems to use it every time you want to
>> avoid substantating an erronous claim.
>
> See above.
See what I mean?
>> >> More proof by irrelevant reference, Eric? How typical.
>> >
>> > See above.
>>
>> See what I mean?
>
> I see you failed to see above.
I have, but as usual, it contains nothing of relevance to your argument.
>> >> You, Eric. How ironic you fail to recognize that fact.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>>
>> A sixth lie. I made the following claim:
>
> On the contrary, this is your eighth lie.
Incorrect, given that I did not lie above.
>> SP] How ironic, coming from someone who routinely fails to use the SP]
>> scientific method.
>>
>> And I implied that the "someone" was you, given that you do indeed
>> routinely fail to use the scientific method.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated argument based on an erroneous presumption.
On the contrary, my argument was quite substantiated, given that you
do indeed fail to use the scientific method.
>> >> Where?
>> >
>> > "Your continuing illogic is indeed predictable, Eric."
>>
>> On the contrary, that claim was quite substantiated.
>
> Where?
In one of the many quoted lines you snipped, in typical Eric "master
of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>> > Having reading comprehension problems again?
>>
>> No.
>
> Evidence, please.
The evidence is that I am comprehending your lies to the best of my
ability.
>> >> How predictable you answered the question incorrectly, given your
>> >> lack of basic logic and relevacy skills.
>> >
>> > It's too bad you still fail to recognize how your behavior is
>> > perceived,
>> > Slava.
>>
>> What alleged "behaviour"?
>
> That's not what I wrote, Slava. Having trouble figuring out how to cut
> and paste properly?
No. Meanwhile, you still haven't identified this alleged "behavior".
>> >> No.
>> >
>> > How predictable.
>>
>> Common sense makes a cameo appearance. It is indeed predictable that I
>> fail to subscribe to incorrect beleifs.
>
> What allegedly "incorrect" beliefs?
Yours, Eric.
>> > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>>
>> My logical argument was there all along, until you snipped it, in
>> typical Eric "master of deletion" fashion.
>
> Illogical.
Irrelevant. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to
be seen!
>> >> Incorrect, given that I have not "deleted" anything.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>>
>> Then where is your evidence of this alleged "deletion"? Why, nowhere to
>> be seen!
>
> Comprehend context.
I comprehend your entertainment perfectly, Eric. How predictable you fail
to recognize that fact, given that you once claimed radio waves don't
exist.
>> >> What you think is shameful is irrelevant, Eric.
>> >
>> > I see you finally admit that you are irrelevant, given that I think
>> > you are shameful. Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
>>
>> More illogic.
>
> Prove it.
Just because
A thinks that B is C
And
D thinks that what A thinks is C is E,
doesn't imply that D thinks that B is E, given that D doesn't also
necessarily think that B is C.
>> Taking logic lessons from Eric "master of illogic" Pott, Eric?
>
> Still strolling down irrelevancy lane?
Still jogging down unsubstantiated claim boulevard?
>> >> 20 lines above, Eric. You made the following claim:
>> >>
>> >> EB] Illogical.
>> >
>> > Irrelevant to your claim, Slava, as you made an illogical statement.
>> > There was no logic to recognize.
>>
>> A seventh lie. My statement:
>
> On the contrary, it is your ninth.
I do not post lies, Eric. That, I leave to you.
>> SP] See what I mean?
>>
>> Was quite logical and unsubstantiated, given that you made the
>> following claim:
>
> It's about time you admitted that your statement was unsubstantiated.
It was a typo, Eric. My statement was actually substantiated.
> How long will it take you to recognize that it was also illogical?
I'm not going to recognize something that is not true, Eric.
>> EB] Still having reading comprehension problems, Slava?
>>
>> Which further illustrates my point, namely:
>>
>> SP] How ironic you allege that my claims are 'unsubstantiated' when you
>> SP] have just made one yourself.
>
> You admit that your claim was unsubstantiated, Slava. How do
> unsubstantiated claims illustrate your point?
I never made such an admission, Eric.
>> An eighth lie. My statement was quite correct, given that I did, in
>> fact,
>> "cite a specific example", unlike what you attempted to prove by
>> proclamation:
>
> On the contrary, you have lied more than eight times.
How ironic, coming from someone who lies on a regular basis.
>> EB] I see you failed to cite a specific example,
>>
>> My "specific example" was as follows:
>
> That was not an example of an unsubstantiated claim, Slava. If you want
> an example, see your own claim above, which you admit was
> unsubstantiated.
What alleged "claim above", Eric? Meanwhile, you still haven't noted
that your claim was unsubstantiated.
>> SP] 20 lines above, Eric. You made the following claim: SP] EB]
>> Illogical. SP] Which is a perfect demonstration of your inability to
>> recognize logic, SP] given my claim above was completely logical.
>
> I already responded to that incorrect argument, Slava. How predictable
> that you continue to engage in argument by redundancy.
You asked for proof, Eric. Hence I reproduced it, since you snipped the
former occurrence of it, in typical Eric "master of deletion" Bennett
fashion.
>> >> What you think is vague is irrelevant.
>> >
>> > On the contrary. What you think is irrelevant is irrelevant.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> See what I mean?
No.
>> >> How predictable, coming from someone with serious logic recognition
>> >> deficencies.
>> >
>> > Who?
>>
>> You, Eric, as my proofs above demonstrate.
>
> Incorrect.
More lies. How ironic, coming from someone who erronously alleges that I
"lie".
>> >> Illogical, given that my claim was quite correct.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>>
>> A ninth lie. You made the following claim:
>
> On the contrary, it is your eleventh lie, Slava.
Do you deny you made that claim, Eric? Illogical.
>> EB] Typical circular reasoning.
>>
>> To which I, quite correctly, replied:
>>
>> SP] Incorrect.
>>
>> Given that my above remark:
>>
>> SP] See above.
>>
>> Is not "circular reasoning", since at the time the above was very
>> relevant to the dicussion.
>
> It referred back to a previous point in the discussion, Slava. The
> reader who followed the discussion from that point would again arrive at
> your admonition to "see above". Thus, you have engaged in circular
> reasoning, regardless of the relevance or irrelevance of "the above".
How ironic, coming from someone who once said:
tholenbot] See above.
But denied engaging in circular reasoning:
tholenbot] Incorrect.
>> > Taking posting lessons from Chris "Roscoe and Flash" Pott?
>
> Note: no response.
On the contrary, you simply failed to locate it.
>> >> What's so obvious about it, Eric?
>> >
>> > Self-evident, by definition, Slava.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Self-evident, by definition, Slava.
Argument by repetition, Eric? Ineffective. Meanwhile, you still haven't
proved by your claim is "self-evident by definition". How typical.
>> >> How ironic, coming from the one exhibiting reading comprehension
>> >> problems.
>> >
>> > See what I mean?
>>
>> Not unless you mean to dig yourself deeper into that hole, Eric.
>
> What alleged "that hole"? Having more specificity problems, I see.
The hole your digging yourself into right now, Eric. Once again you
are unaware of your immediate surroundings, but that is to be
expected, coming from you.
>> >> Illogical, given your remark above.
>> >
>> > What alleged "remark"?
>>
>> Reading comprehension problems, Eric? The remark was:
>>
>> EB] No surprise there.
>>
>> That implies you were expecting a surprise (otherwise you wouldn't
>> point out that there wasn't one).
>
> Incorrect, and also illogical. The earth did not crash into the sun
> yesterday, Slava, but my pointing out this fact does not mean that I
> expected the contrary.
So you admit that your remark:
tholenbot] No surprise there.
Is irrelevant?
>> Hence, it was very illogical of you to claim that the following remark
>> was irrelevant:
>
> The continuation of your argument is build on the illogical foundation
> above, and hence ineffective, Slava.
Prove that my argument is "build" on "the" illogical foundation, if you
think you can.
>> > Circular reasoning is not part of the scientific method.
>>
>> Correct. Now apply that to the current situation.
>
> I do not apply circular reasoning, Slava. That I leave to you.
Liar. By your own admission, "see above" is an example of circular
reasoning.
tholenbot] It referred back to a previous point in the discussion,
tholenbot] Slava. The reader who followed the discussion from that
tholenbot] point would again arrive at your admonition to "see above".
tholenbot] Thus, you have engaged in circular reasoning, regardless
tholenbot] of the relevance or irrelevance of "the above".
Meanwhile, you continue to say "see above":
tholenbot] See above.
Hence your lie.
>> >> Who is this "someone", Eric? It isn't me.
>> >
>> > On the contrary.
>>
>> A tenth lie.
>
> Your twelfth, Slava.
Where?
>>I asked you to prove yet another one of your erronous
>> claims:
>>
>> SP] Prove it, if you think you can.
>>
>> To which you replied
>>
>> EB] How ironic, coming from someone who fails to offer proof.
>>
>> However, I do provide proof; the proof of your ten (and counting) lies
>> in this post is ample evidence.
>
> You haven't proven even a single lie on my part, Slava.
On the contrary. Of course, it takes open eyes to recognize that fact.
>> Since me and you are the only people in this dicussion, the only
>> logical conclusion, given that you are the only possible "someone", is
>> that you, in fact, are the one who fails to provide proof.
>
> I see you failed to observe that Marty Amodeo is also posting in this
> thread, Slava, and therefore is part of the discussion. Of course, it
> takes decent usenet comprehension skills to recognize this fact.
Marty Amodeo jumped into discussion after I wrote the above, Eric.
>> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >
>> > The proof is in three parts. First, if I'm not who I say I am, what
>> > am I doing here, what can I possibly hope to gain? The rescue of an
>> > imposter, the exposure of three spies? Who to? To the very people
>> > this
>> > was to have been working for. I have nothing to gain.
>>
>> What alleged "spies"?
>
> Welcome to American culture, circa 1968.
Illogical, as I have not entered "American culture, circa 1968", hence
cannot be "welcomed" to it.
>> >> On the contrary.
>> >
>> > Argument by repetition, Slava?
>>
>> How ironic, coming from someone who routinely engages in argument by
>> repetition.
>
> How ironic, coming from Slava "Master of Redundancy" Pestov.
"Why?"
>> >> Unlike you, Eric, I only write 'see above' when the material above
>> >> is relevant.
>> >
>> > Obviously not.
>>
>> An eleventh lie. For proof, carefully inspect all the instances when I
>> write "see above", and note how in all those instances, the material
>> above is indeed relevant.
>
> On the contrary, this your thirteenth lie, given that even if your
> assertions here are true, you have still engaged in circular reasoning.
How ironic, coming from Eric "who denies using circular reasoning
when the evidence indicates otherwise" Bennett.
>> >> How typical, coming from someone with serious logic recognition
>> >> deficencies.
>> >
>> > Who?
>>
>> You, Eric.
>
> Liar.
Typical invective. Meanwhile, I see you still haven't noted that you are
the "someone" I referred to. How predictable.
>> >> The fact that my remark was logical.
>> >
>> > Balderdash, Slava.
>>
>> A twelth lie. My remark:
>>
>> SP] How ironic, coming from someone who has serious context SP]
>> comprehension deficencies.
>>
>> Was very logical, given that you claimed that I have difficulty
>> comprehending context:
>>
>> EB] Comprehend context, Slava.
>
> I see you still aren't able to distinguish between actors and
> characters, Slava.
What alleged "actors" and "characters"?
>> When in fact I comprehended the context, being your entertainment,
>> quite correctly, as evidenced by the following remark:
>>
>> SP] Illogical, as I have no mentor, and I am not a grasshopper.
>
> I already replied to that remark, Slava,
Your reply was illogical.
tholenbot] Comprehend context
Which has no relevance to this alleged "mentor" or "grasshopper".
> despite your fourteenth lie.
Illogical. Since I have not lied once in this post, there cannot
possibly be a "fourteenth lie".
>> >> What alleged "Curtis Bass"?
>> >
>> > The one you obviously fail to recognize, Slava.
>>
>> Typical non-answer.
>
> Still pontificating? How predictable.
Still having trouble identifying this alleged "Curtis Bass"? How
predictable.
>> >> Incorrect. See
>> >>
>> >> http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=650187557&CONTEXT
>> >>=964791392.1436352594&hitnum=0
>> >>
>> >>http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=648816277&CONTEXT=
>> >>964791392.1436352594&hitnum
>> >>
>> >>http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=648816277&CONTEXT=964791392.
>> >>1436352594&hitnum=1=1
>> >
>> > Illogical, given that in those posts Eric Bennett was posting as Eric
>> > Bennett, as clearly show in the headers. Have you ever seen Batman
>> > pose
>> > as Michael Keaton, Slava?
>>
>> On the contrary, Eric Bennett was posting as tholenbot, given the
>> clearly recognizable Dave Tholen emulation present in those posts.
>
> I see you failed to answer my question about Michael Keaton and Batman,
> instead resorting to diversionary tactics. For shame, Slava.
I see you failed to address my point about posts from Eric Bennett
emplying tholen emulation tacticts. For shame, Eric.
> Dave Tholen emulation is also clearly recognizable in Chris Pott's
> posts. Do you think Eric Bennett is Chris Pott? Illogical.
Illogical. If A is emulating B and C is also emulating B, it doesn't
imply that A is B.
>> >> Illogical, given I proved otherwise above.
>> >
>> > Incorrect, as shown above.
>>
>> Incorrect, as shown above.
>
> Illogical, given I proved otherwise above.
There was no logical proof above, Eric. More lies.
>> >> More evidence of your hypocrisy.
>> >
>> > Impossible.
>>
>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> More evidence of your hypocrisy.
Once again, you resort to invective when faced with a logical answer.
But that is to be expected, coming from Eric "master of illogic"
Bennett.
>> >> I wonder how Joe Malloy would react to the news of your allegation
>> >> that his "reactions" are "irrelevant", Eric.
>> >
>> > What you wonder is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
>>
>> Irrelevant. Meanwhile, you still haven't provided a logical response to
>> my remark.
>
> I wonder how Joe Malloy would react to the news of your allegation that
> I haven't provided a logical response, Slava.
Joe Malloy couldn't care less, Eric. Meanwhile, you still haven't provided
a logical response to my remark.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
