0:->
February 1st 07, 03:25 AM
krp wrote:
> Yesterday we had a discussion on my trips to Cuba.
Yep.
>
> Kane said he was "TERRIFIED" of visiting my website because it would DESTROY
> his computer and harvest all sorts of SUPER SECRET information about him.
> (The website doesn't even collect cookies.)
"Terrified?" I said that, did I?
Show us.
I said I have no interest in whether you were in Cuba or not. Rather
than deal with what I did ask you about you dropped back to this fake
fallout position and ordered two tons of straw to construct an issue I
was not the least concerned with, and as I recalled I overturn "proof,"
as in irrefutable proof speaking directly to Moore. He conceded the
proof would not constitution irrefutable.
Yet you keep beating the " I WAS in Cuba " strawman.
I didn't say you weren't.
> I offered him the ability to go view the same information on WAY BACK. He
> REFUSES, presumably because it wills end out microwaves and fry his brain!
Why would I want to look at "information" on a subject that no longer
has the power of absolute irrefutable fact, that I myself proved did not?
>
> He DEMANDS I post the images here in ASCPS.
I made no such demand. "Here" is on the Internet.
Here is in a digital group IF YOU WANTED TO, but I had not desire to
look because the issue was dead.
We can assume you were in Cuba if you say so because there is no
absolute proof you were not.
I don't feel the need to beat dead horses.
You do so you don't have to move on to the main issue: Could you have
posted those forgeries.
Not DID, but could.
> As one of the ORIGINAL INVENTORS of the Internet in 1909 along with his
> partner AL WHORE - surely he knows that posting binary images to a
> non-binary group is a no no.
Show where I made such claims.
>
> Kane claims I am "LYING."
Because you are, and have continuously since posting to ascps.
> I offered him 4 choices
> ALL of which he has REFUSED. Readers may draw their own conclusions.
You offered me choices of which **** I'd prefer poured over me.
I don't bathe with liars, thanks.
>
> 1. Name a Binary Group and I will post the images there.
>
I simply didn't care to argue about what stopped being an argument.
> 2. Go to the WAY BACK link I have provided.
See above.
>
> 3. Visit the link to my web page I have provided.
No thanks.
>
> 4. With his permission I will e-mail him the images.
>
I don't need them. I don't dispute whether or not you were in Cuba. I
dispute where you were on the Island that you could not post from.
> I will even make offer # 5. He can join me on a conference call to the owner
> of the charter company and it can be confirmed or disproved.
I'm not arguing about, and never did argue about, if you were in Cuba or
not.
My question was, and always has been, you are ducking it, were you
actually somewhere you could not post out from and can you prove that?
>
> Ron and Kane WILL:
>
> 1. REFUSE in FEAR.
I can tell when I'm afraid.
Of you? Hardly, little lying puke.
>
> 2. Continue to IGNORE the offers.
>
I always ignore what I'm not interested in and have no dispute about.
> 3. Continue to INSIST I do what is not allowed and claim I have failed to
> prove it.
I didn't insist on anything, so you are lying. If YOU wanted to pursue
proving you flew to Cuba I offered you a place to do that. I don't
recall promising I would look there, or that I cared.
You have decided YOU have a dispute over an issue I do not have a
dispute over.
Kind of obvious you are hanging on to it because you cannot answer my
questions that would, if you could prove them, show you could not post
from Cuba for some reason.
> I will also provide them to anyone neutral who requests it.
Gee, look at all the interest since you posted that.
No body gives a **** IF you were in Cuba, Ken. Only IF you could have
found a way to post while you were, or claim you were.
You have lied through tens of posts by this diversion from the real
question.
You are a liar.
> Yesterday we had a discussion on my trips to Cuba.
Yep.
>
> Kane said he was "TERRIFIED" of visiting my website because it would DESTROY
> his computer and harvest all sorts of SUPER SECRET information about him.
> (The website doesn't even collect cookies.)
"Terrified?" I said that, did I?
Show us.
I said I have no interest in whether you were in Cuba or not. Rather
than deal with what I did ask you about you dropped back to this fake
fallout position and ordered two tons of straw to construct an issue I
was not the least concerned with, and as I recalled I overturn "proof,"
as in irrefutable proof speaking directly to Moore. He conceded the
proof would not constitution irrefutable.
Yet you keep beating the " I WAS in Cuba " strawman.
I didn't say you weren't.
> I offered him the ability to go view the same information on WAY BACK. He
> REFUSES, presumably because it wills end out microwaves and fry his brain!
Why would I want to look at "information" on a subject that no longer
has the power of absolute irrefutable fact, that I myself proved did not?
>
> He DEMANDS I post the images here in ASCPS.
I made no such demand. "Here" is on the Internet.
Here is in a digital group IF YOU WANTED TO, but I had not desire to
look because the issue was dead.
We can assume you were in Cuba if you say so because there is no
absolute proof you were not.
I don't feel the need to beat dead horses.
You do so you don't have to move on to the main issue: Could you have
posted those forgeries.
Not DID, but could.
> As one of the ORIGINAL INVENTORS of the Internet in 1909 along with his
> partner AL WHORE - surely he knows that posting binary images to a
> non-binary group is a no no.
Show where I made such claims.
>
> Kane claims I am "LYING."
Because you are, and have continuously since posting to ascps.
> I offered him 4 choices
> ALL of which he has REFUSED. Readers may draw their own conclusions.
You offered me choices of which **** I'd prefer poured over me.
I don't bathe with liars, thanks.
>
> 1. Name a Binary Group and I will post the images there.
>
I simply didn't care to argue about what stopped being an argument.
> 2. Go to the WAY BACK link I have provided.
See above.
>
> 3. Visit the link to my web page I have provided.
No thanks.
>
> 4. With his permission I will e-mail him the images.
>
I don't need them. I don't dispute whether or not you were in Cuba. I
dispute where you were on the Island that you could not post from.
> I will even make offer # 5. He can join me on a conference call to the owner
> of the charter company and it can be confirmed or disproved.
I'm not arguing about, and never did argue about, if you were in Cuba or
not.
My question was, and always has been, you are ducking it, were you
actually somewhere you could not post out from and can you prove that?
>
> Ron and Kane WILL:
>
> 1. REFUSE in FEAR.
I can tell when I'm afraid.
Of you? Hardly, little lying puke.
>
> 2. Continue to IGNORE the offers.
>
I always ignore what I'm not interested in and have no dispute about.
> 3. Continue to INSIST I do what is not allowed and claim I have failed to
> prove it.
I didn't insist on anything, so you are lying. If YOU wanted to pursue
proving you flew to Cuba I offered you a place to do that. I don't
recall promising I would look there, or that I cared.
You have decided YOU have a dispute over an issue I do not have a
dispute over.
Kind of obvious you are hanging on to it because you cannot answer my
questions that would, if you could prove them, show you could not post
from Cuba for some reason.
> I will also provide them to anyone neutral who requests it.
Gee, look at all the interest since you posted that.
No body gives a **** IF you were in Cuba, Ken. Only IF you could have
found a way to post while you were, or claim you were.
You have lied through tens of posts by this diversion from the real
question.
You are a liar.