On 27/02/2022 4:20 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 13:19:31 +1100, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 27/02/2022 12:16 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 11:04 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> as I've seen explained to you more than once, noddy is proffering
>>>> knowledge on automotive matters in a cars newsgroup on the basis of
>>>> being a qualified motor mechanic. ppl here who are that, have raised
>>>> doubt he is since he's been wrong, and given bad advice, on numerous
>>>> occasions. in fact Xeno has stated he cannot be qualified since
>>>> there's no registration number in his name in the relevant govt data
>>>> base. I've stated that any qualifications I posses are irrelevant to
>>>> automotive matters, and further I have no qualifications that are
>>>> relevant, and only speak from personal experience working on my own
>>>> cars. and no one is 'demanding' that noddy 'reveals' any
>>>> qualifications, only that he proves those he claims he has, and for
>>>> the reasons I've just given.
>>>> see above reply
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Total cop-out - you're still a little hypocrite.
>> Massively so. His comments above are a bordering on insanity.
> Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong Fraudster. Because you are nuts does not
> make you eligible to judge anyone's sanity.
>> His claims that I'm guilty of "proffering knowledge on automotive
>> matters in a cars newsgroup on the basis of being a qualified motor
>> mechanic" are utterly nonsensical.
> Anddd right on cue, you provide proof that you're nuts.
>
> “But I am a qualified mechanic however. Qualified automotive machinist as
> well.” Fraudster, 19Aug18
>
> “I'm a qualified Motor Mechanic and Automotive Machinist. I *know* these
> things are true. I was there and did it. It is factual.” Fraudster, 02Jun18
>
> “I have flat out stated *categorically* that I hold two trade
> certificates. One as a "Motor Mechanic - General Stream", and the other
> as an "automotive machinist".” Fraudster. 02Apr18

lol. shot himself in the foot. (again!)

>
>> I've done nothing different to anyone
>> else in this group other than offered an opinion, and I've never stated
>> that my opinion on anything in particular is worth more or less than
>> that of anyone else's.
> 100% irrelevant. The *fact* Fraudster is that you have claimed to be
> something which you are unable to substantiate.
>
>> It is *also* utterly ridiculous to claim that no
>> one is 'damanding' that I reveal my qualifications when that very demand
>> is made around here virtually every single fucking day :)
> I have never "damaded" anything from you. [I know, cheap shot. But then
> Fraudster has both put shit on people for doing similar, *and* crowed about
> how "pretty good" he is with English.]
>> Jesus Christ :)
> Yep. Like many a long-term, incarcerated criminal, Fraudster discovers
> religion.
>> This bloke is a *lunatic*, and all he's managed to achieve in writing
>> this load of ridiculous bullshit is to show how unhinged he actually is
>> in believing that I should be subject to a level of scrutiny that he and
>> his retarded mates are clearly exempt from.
> Guess what Fraudster! You're now paying the price for being a foul and
> abusive idiot who has no understanding of Cause and Effect. That'd be in
> addition to honesty and a host of societal norms.
>
> You are a liar, fraud, hypocrite and a snivelling, whining coward Gibbens.
>
>> Just when you think these morons couldn't get any more retarded.... :)
> What you think does *not* represent what the overwhelming majority of the
> population believe Fraudster. By my calculations, it's just you, Dickhead
> Deryl and Vladimir Putin. Do ***EVERYONE*** a favour and piss off.
>

I don't want to see him piss off. I'm sure he can contribute. he just
needs to come clean about lying and stop abusing ppl, but that's never
gonna happen.

>
> alvey
>

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by the enormous weight of his lies"
"You're now paying the price for being a foul and abusive idiot who has no understanding of
Cause and Effect. That'd be in addition to honesty and a host of societal norms"
- Alvey on the Fraudster
"His self serving ego pumping comments just
read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy

On 27/2/22 16:39, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 4:20 pm, alvey wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 13:19:31 +1100, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/02/2022 12:16 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 11:04 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> as I've seen explained to you more than once, noddy is proffering
>>>>> knowledge on automotive matters in a cars newsgroup on the basis of
>>>>> being a qualified motor mechanic. ppl here who are that, have raised
>>>>> doubt he is since he's been wrong, and given bad advice, on numerous
>>>>> occasions. in fact Xeno has stated he cannot be qualified since
>>>>> there's no registration number in his name in the relevant govt data
>>>>> base. I've stated that any qualifications I posses are irrelevant to
>>>>> automotive matters, and further I have no qualifications that are
>>>>> relevant, and only speak from personal experience working on my own
>>>>> cars. and no one is 'demanding' that noddy 'reveals' any
>>>>> qualifications, only that he proves those he claims he has, and for
>>>>> the reasons I've just given.
>>>>> see above reply
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Total cop-out - you're still a little hypocrite.
>>> Massively so. His comments above are a bordering on insanity.
>> Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong Fraudster. Because you are nuts does not
>> make you eligible to judge anyone's sanity.
>>> His claims that I'm guilty of "proffering knowledge on automotive
>>> matters in a cars newsgroup on the basis of being a qualified motor
>>> mechanic" are utterly nonsensical.
>> Anddd right on cue, you provide proof that you're nuts.
>>
>> “But I am a qualified mechanic however. Qualified automotive machinist as
>> well.” Fraudster, 19Aug18
>>
>> “I'm a qualified Motor Mechanic and Automotive Machinist. I *know* these
>> things are true. I was there and did it. It is factual.” Fraudster,
>> 02Jun18
>>
>> “I have flat out stated *categorically* that I hold two trade
>> certificates. One as a "Motor Mechanic - General Stream", and the other
>> as an "automotive machinist".” Fraudster. 02Apr18
>
>
> lol. shot himself in the foot. (again!)
>
Darren's rather good at doing that!
>
>>
>>> I've done nothing different to anyone
>>> else in this group other than offered an opinion, and I've never stated
>>> that my opinion on anything in particular is worth more or less than
>>> that of anyone else's.
>> 100% irrelevant. The *fact* Fraudster is that you have claimed to be
>> something which you are unable to substantiate.
>>
>>> It is *also* utterly ridiculous to claim that no
>>> one is 'damanding' that I reveal my qualifications when that very demand
>>> is made around here virtually every single fucking day :)
>> I have never "damaded" anything from you. [I know, cheap shot. But then
>> Fraudster has both put shit on people for doing similar, *and* crowed
>> about
>> how "pretty good" he is with English.]
>>> Jesus Christ :)
>> Yep. Like many a long-term, incarcerated criminal, Fraudster discovers
>> religion.
>>> This bloke is a *lunatic*, and all he's managed to achieve in writing
>>> this load of ridiculous bullshit is to show how unhinged he actually is
>>> in believing that I should be subject to a level of scrutiny that he and
>>> his retarded mates are clearly exempt from.
>> Guess what Fraudster! You're now paying the price for being a foul and
>> abusive idiot who has no understanding of Cause and Effect. That'd be in
>> addition to honesty and a host of societal norms.
>>
>> You are a liar, fraud, hypocrite and a snivelling, whining coward
>> Gibbens.
>>> Just when you think these morons couldn't get any more retarded.... :)
>> What you think does *not* represent what the overwhelming majority of the
>> population believe Fraudster. By my calculations, it's just you, Dickhead
>> Deryl and Vladimir Putin. Do ***EVERYONE*** a favour and piss off.
>>
>
> I don't want to see him piss off. I'm sure he can contribute. he just
> needs to come clean about lying and stop abusing ppl, but that's never
> gonna happen.
>
Indeed, never gonna happen so him pissing off is the best solution for
aus.cars as a whole. Just look at his unjustified attacks on Peter Jason
as a perfect example of Darren's MO. Aus.cars does not need an aggro
little prick like Darren - he's why most aus.cars posters moved on to
greener pastures.

--
Xeno

On 27/02/2022 3:03 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 11:16:05 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:

>> All for the sake of trying to get the upper hand in a ridiculously
>> redundant newsgroup argument.
>>
>> You would need to go a *very* long way indeed to find a more insanely
>> shallow bunch of inferiority complexes than these fucked up people here.....

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stupid circular arguments (Actually *argument* singular) that has been going on for *YEARS*. All they are doing is reinforcing their immaturity/stupidity...
> Sad part is, for the majority of them it`s simply too late to get a life and move on.!!!

There's very little that's sad about it. It's what these morons live
for, as they have little else to do with their pathetic lives.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 27/02/2022 3:18 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 15:08:33 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:

>>>>
>>> I agree, competence is the only qualification worth having.
>> I also agree. That's why I taught to *competency standards* in the
>> trade. That also begs the question, if trade papers aren't the be all
>> and end all, then why did Darren feel the need to *lie* about having 3
>> apprenticeships and two trade qualifications? He has never been signed
>> up to an apprenticeship in his life nor has he ever attended TAFE as an
>> apprentice. Why then the lie? Does his ego need that much bolstering?
>> Apparently so!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Typical krypsis....Two bob each way... PFffffttttt

He *clearly* did fuck all "teaching" about brakes and carburetors :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 27/02/2022 5:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 3:03 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 11:16:05 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> All for the sake of trying to get the upper hand in a ridiculously
>>> redundant newsgroup argument.
>>>
>>> You would need to go a *very* long way indeed to find a more insanely
>>> shallow bunch of inferiority complexes than these fucked up people
>>> here.....
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Stupid circular arguments (Actually *argument* singular) that has
>> been going on for *YEARS*. All they are doing is reinforcing their
>> immaturity/stupidity...
>>      Sad part is, for the majority of them it`s simply too late to
>> get a life and move on.!!!
>
> There's very little that's sad about it. It's what these morons live
> for, as they have little else to do with their pathetic lives.
>
>
LOL

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"His self serving ego pumping comments just
read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy

On 27/2/22 17:53, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 5:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 3:03 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 11:16:05 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> All for the sake of trying to get the upper hand in a ridiculously
>>>> redundant newsgroup argument.
>>>>
>>>> You would need to go a *very* long way indeed to find a more insanely
>>>> shallow bunch of inferiority complexes than these fucked up people
>>>> here.....
>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> Stupid circular arguments (Actually *argument* singular) that has
>>> been going on for *YEARS*. All they are doing is reinforcing their
>>> immaturity/stupidity...
>>>      Sad part is, for the majority of them it`s simply too late to
>>> get a life and move on.!!!
>>
>> There's very little that's sad about it. It's what these morons live
>> for, as they have little else to do with their pathetic lives.
>>
>>
> LOL
>
Darren has such a pathetic little life that he has to *invent*
achievements. I mean, three apprenticeships? FFS, that's just OTT and,
anyway, it was *illegal* in Victoria to do more than one *until* 1992!
Did an auto machining apprenticeship *in-house* at Repco? Not after 1978
he didn't, all apprentices in that field had to attend the new
department at Richmond TAFE. Such a pity Darren wasn't cognisant of
these rather important details. But he wouldn't have been since all this
existed only in his head!

On 27/02/2022 7:02 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 27/2/22 17:53, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 5:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 3:03 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 11:16:05 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> All for the sake of trying to get the upper hand in a ridiculously
>>>>> redundant newsgroup argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would need to go a *very* long way indeed to find a more insanely
>>>>> shallow bunch of inferiority complexes than these fucked up people
>>>>> here.....
>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> Stupid circular arguments (Actually *argument* singular) that has
>>>> been going on for *YEARS*. All they are doing is reinforcing their
>>>> immaturity/stupidity...
>>>>      Sad part is, for the majority of them it`s simply too late to
>>>> get a life and move on.!!!
>>>
>>> There's very little that's sad about it. It's what these morons live
>>> for, as they have little else to do with their pathetic lives.
>>>
>>>
>> LOL
>>
> Darren has such a pathetic little life that he has to *invent*
> achievements. I mean, three apprenticeships? FFS, that's just OTT and,
> anyway, it was *illegal* in Victoria to do more than one *until* 1992!
> Did an auto machining apprenticeship *in-house* at Repco? Not after
> 1978 he didn't, all apprentices in that field had to attend the new
> department at Richmond TAFE. Such a pity Darren wasn't cognisant of
> these rather important details. But he wouldn't have been since all
> this existed only in his head!

yes, and how silly and vain of him to think he can judge the lives of
others without knowing anything (much) about our real lives. and what
could be more pathetic than living in the middle of nowhere on a bleak
windswept mesa with nothing to do but tinker in a tin shed, lol!

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"His self serving ego pumping comments just
read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy

On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 16:04:40 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 2:22 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > By your words and attitude, you come across (to me) as a lacklustre, grovelling, loser!. HTH.
> >
> while you shine like I diamond I guess.. anyhoo, jonzie ol'stick, DO try
> to get it thru your thick skull once and for all that I have NO interest
> in your opinion of me. and in anticipation of your moronic response..
> "why did you reply to this then?", just consider it common courtesy, so
> that you fully understand my position, and can save your fingers in
> future for unscrewing nuts, or whatever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HO-HUM, *No* prizes for second shitbags!. :)
BTW, *understand yer position*??, you don`t have one.
You simply float around accepting a wee pat on the bonce from whomever offers. :)))
( Bit like seagulls and chips.)

> --
> https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
> "His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
> the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
> "His self serving ego pumping comments just
> read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy

On 27/02/2022 3:23 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 12:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 1:42 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 12:17 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 10:48 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 6:41 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:28:01 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or leave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to boost your own ego. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions that go to the heart of your integrity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the accusation. Go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow up to that from xeno, but nothing from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocky?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated, "yes" was the only answer you could have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity. That's a problem for you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being irrational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly enunciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack
>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity" as
>>>>>>>>>>>> proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>> I'll wait..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to
>>>>>>>> NoddyLiar to
>>>>>>>> prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive"
>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>> exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you are
>>>>>>> lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are being obtuse and idiotic to the point of being Not Worth
>>>>>> Reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an understatement.
>>>>> He's now arguing against his own argument FFS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Bart Simpson, write this out a hundred times. "FRAUDSTER MADE
>>>>>> THE
>>>>>> CLAIM. THE ONUS IS ON HIM TO PROVE IT."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or...
>>>>>
>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>
>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>
>>>> Believe what you want clocky, history shows that you will believe
>>>> whatever is convenient to you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> your posting history shows you will run and dodge when confronted
>>> with sound argument that negates what you say. maybe your intellect
>>> is not as big as you believe it to be. maybe it's just 'little'..
>>>
>> I have yet to see a "Sound argument" in this place.
>
> You've never been capable of presenting one.

On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 1:42 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 12:17 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 10:48 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 6:41 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:28:01 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or leave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to boost your own ego. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions that go to the heart of your integrity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the accusation. Go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow up to that from xeno, but nothing from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocky?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated, "yes" was the only answer you could have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity. That's a problem for you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being irrational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly enunciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack
>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity" as
>>>>>>>>>>>> proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>> I'll wait..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to
>>>>>>>> NoddyLiar to
>>>>>>>> prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive"
>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>> exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you are
>>>>>>> lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are being obtuse and idiotic to the point of being Not Worth
>>>>>> Reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an understatement.
>>>>> He's now arguing against his own argument FFS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Bart Simpson, write this out a hundred times. "FRAUDSTER MADE
>>>>>> THE
>>>>>> CLAIM. THE ONUS IS ON HIM TO PROVE IT."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or...
>>>>>
>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>
>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>
>>>> Believe what you want clocky, history shows that you will believe
>>>> whatever is convenient to you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> your posting history shows you will run and dodge when confronted
>>> with sound argument that negates what you say. maybe your intellect
>>> is not as big as you believe it to be. maybe it's just 'little'..
>>>
>> I have yet to see a "Sound argument" in this place.
>
>
> ah yes.. your usual cop out whenever you are challenged or criticised.
>
> and
>
> (I accidentally deleted the original of this post but here's the text)
>
>
> >>>>>>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out
> >>>>>>>>> what people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling
> >>>>>>>>> through record offices looking for something to hang on noddy,
> >>>>>>>>> don't you detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered
> >>>>>>>> for 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive
> >>>>>>>> wanted, order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The
> >>>>>>>> entire process *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere minutes in
> >>>>>>>> fact. Really easy if a trade registration number is given. I
> >>>>>>>> used to do the lookups *for the college* back in the days when a
> >>>>>>>> former apprentice wanted to have a go at completing his
> >>>>>>>> apprenticeship, in most cases where they had completed their
> >>>>>>>> time but not their college work hence failed to receive their
> >>>>>>>> certificate of proficiency. When a record isn't on the computer
> >>>>>>>> database, one gets suspicious of claims made since *all*
> >>>>>>>> automotive records for every automotive trade are maintained
> >>>>>>>> online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place records
> >>>>>>>> are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for
> >>>>>>>> people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the
> >>>>>>>> records aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as far as
> >>>>>>>> the government is concerned. No records exist in Darren's name
> >>>>>>>> *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove me wrong any time he
> >>>>>>>> likes. ;-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> well said! (little felix squeaked) keefy apparently has no prob
> >>>>>>> with ppl claiming qualifications they don't have, trading with
> >>>>>>> deception and duping their customers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've never claimed any qualifications at all. However, you have
> >>>>>> implied that you do have some
> >>>>>
> >>>>> no I have not implied that I have some I have stated that I do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> but don't even reveal what they are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> they're not relevant to posting here
> >>>>
> >>>> Very relevant when you are demanding that others reveal theirs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> as I've seen explained to you more than once, noddy is proffering
> >>> knowledge on automotive matters in a cars newsgroup on the basis of
> >>> being a qualified motor mechanic. ppl here who are that, have raised
> >>> doubt he is since he's been wrong, and given bad advice, on numerous
> >>> occasions. in fact Xeno has stated he cannot be qualified since
> >>> there's no registration number in his name in the relevant govt data
> >>> base. I've stated that any qualifications I posses are irrelevant to
> >>> automotive matters, and further I have no qualifications that are
> >>> relevant, and only speak from personal experience working on my own
> >>> cars. and no one is 'demanding' that noddy 'reveals' any
> >>> qualifications, only that he proves those he claims he has, and for
> >>> the reasons I've just given.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> That's convenient so that your claims cannot be tested.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> they don't need to be. you're free to believe what I say or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just as you are free to believe or not others claims, but it is
> >>>> total hypocrisy to demand from others that which you aren't willing
> >>>> to do yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> see above reply
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Total cop-out - you're still a little hypocrite.
> >
> >
> > bullshit. you can't admit I'm right in what I said. and I see I'm
> > 'little' again. you're an idiot. you'd rather support a fraud than
> > maintain your integrity. and btw care to cite where I've *demanded* that
> > he prove he's qualified? and btw, since you seem to be intellectually
> > challenged these days, asking someone *why* they won't do something, and
> > discussing why they don't or haven't done it, is *not* demanding that
> > they do it. my phone was charging the other day, and i sent a text from
> > my old phone to a friend. they didn't recognize the number, and the
> > reply came back "who is this? I demand to know right now!" that's an
> > example of a demand, just so you know what a demand actually is.
>
> You're a very angry little
>
> ** oh I'm 'little' again, or is it still?

On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 1:42 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 12:17 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 10:48 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 6:41 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:28:01 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or leave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to boost your own ego. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. Go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow up to that from xeno, but nothing from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocky?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated, "yes" was the only answer you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity. That's a problem for you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrational and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enunciated above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity" as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll wait..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to
>>>>>>>>> NoddyLiar to
>>>>>>>>> prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys
>>>>>>>> Automotive" didn't
>>>>>>>> exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you
>>>>>>>> are lying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are being obtuse and idiotic to the point of being Not Worth
>>>>>>> Reading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an understatement.
>>>>>> He's now arguing against his own argument FFS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like Bart Simpson, write this out a hundred times. "FRAUDSTER
>>>>>>> MADE THE
>>>>>>> CLAIM. THE ONUS IS ON HIM TO PROVE IT."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>
>>>>> Believe what you want clocky, history shows that you will believe
>>>>> whatever is convenient to you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> your posting history shows you will run and dodge when confronted
>>>> with sound argument that negates what you say. maybe your intellect
>>>> is not as big as you believe it to be. maybe it's just 'little'..
>>>>
>>> I have yet to see a "Sound argument" in this place.
>>
>>
>> ah yes.. your usual cop out whenever you are challenged or criticised.
>>
>> and
>>
>> (I accidentally deleted the original of this post but here's the text)
>>
>>
>>  >>>>>>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking
>> out
>>  >>>>>>>>> what people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for
>> trawling
>>  >>>>>>>>> through record offices looking for something to hang on
>> noddy,
>>  >>>>>>>>> don't you detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>  >>>>>>>>
>>  >>>>>>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered
>>  >>>>>>>> for 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive
>>  >>>>>>>> wanted, order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The
>>  >>>>>>>> entire process *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere
>> minutes in
>>  >>>>>>>> fact. Really easy if a trade registration number is given. I
>>  >>>>>>>> used to do the lookups *for the college* back in the days
>> when a
>>  >>>>>>>> former apprentice wanted to have a go at completing his
>>  >>>>>>>> apprenticeship, in most cases where they had completed their
>>  >>>>>>>> time but not their college work hence failed to receive their
>>  >>>>>>>> certificate of proficiency. When a record isn't on the
>> computer
>>  >>>>>>>> database, one gets suspicious of claims made since *all*
>>  >>>>>>>> automotive records for every automotive trade are maintained
>>  >>>>>>>> online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place records
>>  >>>>>>>> are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for
>>  >>>>>>>> people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the
>>  >>>>>>>> records aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as far as
>>  >>>>>>>> the government is concerned. No records exist in Darren's name
>>  >>>>>>>> *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove me wrong any time he
>>  >>>>>>>> likes. ;-)
>>  >>>>>>>>
>>  >>>>>>>
>>  >>>>>>> well said! (little felix squeaked) keefy apparently has no prob
>>  >>>>>>> with ppl claiming qualifications they don't have, trading with
>>  >>>>>>> deception and duping their customers.
>>  >>>>>>
>>  >>>>>> I've never claimed any qualifications at all. However, you have
>>  >>>>>> implied that you do have some
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>> no I have not implied that I have some I have stated that I do.
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>>> but don't even reveal what they are.
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>> they're not relevant to posting here
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> Very relevant when you are demanding that others reveal theirs
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> as I've seen explained to you more than once, noddy is proffering
>>  >>> knowledge on automotive matters in a cars newsgroup on the basis of
>>  >>> being a qualified motor mechanic. ppl here who are that, have
>> raised
>>  >>> doubt he is since he's been wrong, and given bad advice, on
>> numerous
>>  >>> occasions. in fact Xeno has stated he cannot be qualified since
>>  >>> there's no registration number in his name in the relevant govt
>> data
>>  >>> base. I've stated that any qualifications I posses are
>> irrelevant to
>>  >>> automotive matters, and further I have no qualifications that are
>>  >>> relevant, and only speak from personal experience working on my own
>>  >>> cars. and no one is 'demanding' that noddy 'reveals' any
>>  >>> qualifications, only that he proves those he claims he has, and for
>>  >>> the reasons I've just given.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>>>> That's convenient so that your claims cannot be tested.
>>  >>>>>>
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>> they don't need to be. you're free to believe what I say or not.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> Just as you are free to believe or not others claims, but it is
>>  >>>> total hypocrisy to demand from others that which you aren't
>> willing
>>  >>>> to do yourself.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> see above reply
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >> Total cop-out - you're still a little hypocrite.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > bullshit. you can't admit I'm right in what I said. and I see I'm
>>  > 'little' again. you're an idiot. you'd rather support a fraud than
>>  > maintain your integrity. and btw care to cite where I've
>> *demanded* that
>>  > he prove he's qualified? and btw, since you seem to be intellectually
>>  > challenged these days, asking someone *why* they won't do
>> something, and
>>  > discussing why they don't or haven't done it, is *not* demanding that
>>  > they do it. my phone was charging the other day, and i sent a text
>> from
>>  > my old phone to a friend. they didn't recognize the number, and the
>>  > reply came back "who is this? I demand to know right now!" that's an
>>  > example of a demand, just so you know what a demand actually is.
>>
>> You're a very angry little
>>
>> ** oh I'm 'little' again, or is it still?
>
> Still
>
>> man peter,
>>
>> ** rubbish. you call that angry? with apologies to John Paul Jones
>> let me say.. "I have not yet begun to be angry"
>
> Oooh scary.
>
>> you need to chill out and not take some irrelevant news group so
>> seriously.
>>
>> ** so as usual you have not addressed anything I said, just run away..
>
> You don't have anything substantive to address.
>
>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in your
>> own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>
>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but you
>> just run away!
>
> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.

On 27/02/2022 8:06 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:

>>
>>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in your
>>> own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>>
>>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but you
>>> just run away!
>>
>> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.
>
>
> you're a joke. you belong with jonz, the fraudster, and the other riff
> raff.
>

Great substantive argument there little man. Keith has not run away, but
has handed you a whipping which you must like as you keep coming back
for more.

HTH

On 27/02/2022 8:06 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 1:42 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 12:17 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 10:48 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 6:41 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:28:01 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or leave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to boost your own ego. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. Go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow up to that from xeno, but nothing from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocky?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated, "yes" was the only answer you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity. That's a problem for you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrational and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enunciated above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity" as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll wait..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to
>>>>>>>>>> NoddyLiar to
>>>>>>>>>> prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys
>>>>>>>>> Automotive" didn't
>>>>>>>>> exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you
>>>>>>>>> are lying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are being obtuse and idiotic to the point of being Not Worth
>>>>>>>> Reading.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an understatement.
>>>>>>> He's now arguing against his own argument FFS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like Bart Simpson, write this out a hundred times. "FRAUDSTER
>>>>>>>> MADE THE
>>>>>>>> CLAIM. THE ONUS IS ON HIM TO PROVE IT."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Believe what you want clocky, history shows that you will believe
>>>>>> whatever is convenient to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> your posting history shows you will run and dodge when confronted
>>>>> with sound argument that negates what you say. maybe your intellect
>>>>> is not as big as you believe it to be. maybe it's just 'little'..
>>>>>
>>>> I have yet to see a "Sound argument" in this place.
>>>
>>>
>>> ah yes.. your usual cop out whenever you are challenged or criticised.
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> (I accidentally deleted the original of this post but here's the text)
>>>
>>>
>>>  >>>>>>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking
>>> out
>>>  >>>>>>>>> what people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for
>>> trawling
>>>  >>>>>>>>> through record offices looking for something to hang on
>>> noddy,
>>>  >>>>>>>>> don't you detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered
>>>  >>>>>>>> for 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive
>>>  >>>>>>>> wanted, order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The
>>>  >>>>>>>> entire process *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere
>>> minutes in
>>>  >>>>>>>> fact. Really easy if a trade registration number is given. I
>>>  >>>>>>>> used to do the lookups *for the college* back in the days
>>> when a
>>>  >>>>>>>> former apprentice wanted to have a go at completing his
>>>  >>>>>>>> apprenticeship, in most cases where they had completed their
>>>  >>>>>>>> time but not their college work hence failed to receive their
>>>  >>>>>>>> certificate of proficiency. When a record isn't on the
>>> computer
>>>  >>>>>>>> database, one gets suspicious of claims made since *all*
>>>  >>>>>>>> automotive records for every automotive trade are maintained
>>>  >>>>>>>> online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place records
>>>  >>>>>>>> are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for
>>>  >>>>>>>> people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the
>>>  >>>>>>>> records aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as far as
>>>  >>>>>>>> the government is concerned. No records exist in Darren's name
>>>  >>>>>>>> *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove me wrong any time he
>>>  >>>>>>>> likes. ;-)
>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>>> well said! (little felix squeaked) keefy apparently has no prob
>>>  >>>>>>> with ppl claiming qualifications they don't have, trading with
>>>  >>>>>>> deception and duping their customers.
>>>  >>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> I've never claimed any qualifications at all. However, you have
>>>  >>>>>> implied that you do have some
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> no I have not implied that I have some I have stated that I do.
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> but don't even reveal what they are.
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> they're not relevant to posting here
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> Very relevant when you are demanding that others reveal theirs
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> as I've seen explained to you more than once, noddy is proffering
>>>  >>> knowledge on automotive matters in a cars newsgroup on the basis of
>>>  >>> being a qualified motor mechanic. ppl here who are that, have
>>> raised
>>>  >>> doubt he is since he's been wrong, and given bad advice, on
>>> numerous
>>>  >>> occasions. in fact Xeno has stated he cannot be qualified since
>>>  >>> there's no registration number in his name in the relevant govt
>>> data
>>>  >>> base. I've stated that any qualifications I posses are
>>> irrelevant to
>>>  >>> automotive matters, and further I have no qualifications that are
>>>  >>> relevant, and only speak from personal experience working on my own
>>>  >>> cars. and no one is 'demanding' that noddy 'reveals' any
>>>  >>> qualifications, only that he proves those he claims he has, and for
>>>  >>> the reasons I've just given.
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>>>> That's convenient so that your claims cannot be tested.
>>>  >>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> they don't need to be. you're free to believe what I say or not.
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> Just as you are free to believe or not others claims, but it is
>>>  >>>> total hypocrisy to demand from others that which you aren't
>>> willing
>>>  >>>> to do yourself.
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> see above reply
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>>
>>>  >> Total cop-out - you're still a little hypocrite.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > bullshit. you can't admit I'm right in what I said. and I see I'm
>>>  > 'little' again. you're an idiot. you'd rather support a fraud than
>>>  > maintain your integrity. and btw care to cite where I've
>>> *demanded* that
>>>  > he prove he's qualified? and btw, since you seem to be intellectually
>>>  > challenged these days, asking someone *why* they won't do
>>> something, and
>>>  > discussing why they don't or haven't done it, is *not* demanding that
>>>  > they do it. my phone was charging the other day, and i sent a text
>>> from
>>>  > my old phone to a friend. they didn't recognize the number, and the
>>>  > reply came back "who is this? I demand to know right now!" that's an
>>>  > example of a demand, just so you know what a demand actually is.
>>>
>>> You're a very angry little
>>>
>>> ** oh I'm 'little' again, or is it still?
>>
>> Still
>>
>>> man peter,
>>>
>>> ** rubbish. you call that angry? with apologies to John Paul Jones
>>> let me say.. "I have not yet begun to be angry"
>>
>> Oooh scary.
>>
>>> you need to chill out and not take some irrelevant news group so
>>> seriously.
>>>
>>> ** so as usual you have not addressed anything I said, just run away..
>>
>> You don't have anything substantive to address.
>>
>>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in your
>>> own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>>
>>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but you
>>> just run away!
>>
>> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.
>
>
> you're a joke. you belong with jonz, the fraudster, and the other riff
> raff.
>
>
The thing that you don't realise is that I don't take all this
seriously, it's just entertainment. I don't care if alvey writes stupid
little epithets, you stamp your foot in petulance, or clocky questions
my sanity, it's all just fun watching other's stupidity.

On 27/02/2022 10:34 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 8:06 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in
>>>> your own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>>>
>>>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but
>>>> you just run away!
>>>
>>> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.
>>
>>
>> you're a joke. you belong with jonz, the fraudster, and the other
>> riff raff.
>>
>
> Great substantive argument there little man. Keith has not run away,
> but has handed you a whipping which you must like as you keep coming
> back for more.
>
> HTH
>

you really are a first class dickhead. if you had at least half a brain,
and any honesty, you would see that he has done nothing of the sort.
cute remarks never defeat rationality. and don't concern yourself about
me coming back for more. I have his number now. there's no point in
talking sense to him (or you!). you noddy, and keith are all one of a
kind. you all belong in the same basket.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"His self serving ego pumping comments just
read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy

On 27/02/2022 11:37 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 10:34 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 8:06 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in
>>>>> your own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but
>>>>> you just run away!
>>>>
>>>> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.
>>>
>>>
>>> you're a joke. you belong with jonz, the fraudster, and the other
>>> riff raff.
>>>
>>
>> Great substantive argument there little man. Keith has not run away,
>> but has handed you a whipping which you must like as you keep coming
>> back for more.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>
> you really are a first class dickhead. if you had at least half a brain,
> and any honesty, you would see that he has done nothing of the sort.

I have a very good brain which is why I can see he has whipped you. I'm
the most honest person you know.

> cute remarks never defeat rationality. and don't concern yourself about
> me coming back for more. I have his number now.

Really. It doesn't seem to add up.

there's no point in
> talking sense to him (or you!). you noddy, and keith are all one of a
> kind. you all belong in the same basket.
>
You know with that sort of hot air we might be able to go ballooning.
You'll need to keep it up so we have a good flight.

On 27/02/2022 11:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 8:06 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 1:42 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 12:17 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 10:48 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 6:41 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:28:01 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to boost your own ego. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. Go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fawning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow up to that from xeno, but nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from clocky?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon" Oct 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either he proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided or found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated, "yes" was the only answer you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> If there is only one course of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> We will just call this Keef's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity. That's a problem for you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrational and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enunciated above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity" as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll wait..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to
>>>>>>>>>>> NoddyLiar to
>>>>>>>>>>> prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys
>>>>>>>>>> Automotive" didn't
>>>>>>>>>> exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you
>>>>>>>>>> are lying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are being obtuse and idiotic to the point of being Not
>>>>>>>>> Worth Reading.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an understatement.
>>>>>>>> He's now arguing against his own argument FFS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like Bart Simpson, write this out a hundred times. "FRAUDSTER
>>>>>>>>> MADE THE
>>>>>>>>> CLAIM. THE ONUS IS ON HIM TO PROVE IT."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Believe what you want clocky, history shows that you will
>>>>>>> believe whatever is convenient to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your posting history shows you will run and dodge when confronted
>>>>>> with sound argument that negates what you say. maybe your
>>>>>> intellect is not as big as you believe it to be. maybe it's just
>>>>>> 'little'..
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have yet to see a "Sound argument" in this place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ah yes.. your usual cop out whenever you are challenged or criticised.
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> (I accidentally deleted the original of this post but here's the text)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for
>>>> checking out
>>>>  >>>>>>>>> what people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for
>>>> trawling
>>>>  >>>>>>>>> through record offices looking for something to hang on
>>>> noddy,
>>>>  >>>>>>>>> don't you detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been
>>>> registered
>>>>  >>>>>>>> for 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive
>>>>  >>>>>>>> wanted, order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The
>>>>  >>>>>>>> entire process *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere
>>>> minutes in
>>>>  >>>>>>>> fact. Really easy if a trade registration number is given. I
>>>>  >>>>>>>> used to do the lookups *for the college* back in the days
>>>> when a
>>>>  >>>>>>>> former apprentice wanted to have a go at completing his
>>>>  >>>>>>>> apprenticeship, in most cases where they had completed their
>>>>  >>>>>>>> time but not their college work hence failed to receive
>>>> their
>>>>  >>>>>>>> certificate of proficiency. When a record isn't on the
>>>> computer
>>>>  >>>>>>>> database, one gets suspicious of claims made since *all*
>>>>  >>>>>>>> automotive records for every automotive trade are maintained
>>>>  >>>>>>>> online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place
>>>> records
>>>>  >>>>>>>> are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for
>>>>  >>>>>>>> people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the
>>>>  >>>>>>>> records aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as
>>>> far as
>>>>  >>>>>>>> the government is concerned. No records exist in Darren's
>>>> name
>>>>  >>>>>>>> *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove me wrong any time he
>>>>  >>>>>>>> likes. ;-)
>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>> well said! (little felix squeaked) keefy apparently has no
>>>> prob
>>>>  >>>>>>> with ppl claiming qualifications they don't have, trading
>>>> with
>>>>  >>>>>>> deception and duping their customers.
>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>> I've never claimed any qualifications at all. However, you
>>>> have
>>>>  >>>>>> implied that you do have some
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>> no I have not implied that I have some I have stated that I do.
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>> but don't even reveal what they are.
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>> they're not relevant to posting here
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>> Very relevant when you are demanding that others reveal theirs
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>> as I've seen explained to you more than once, noddy is proffering
>>>>  >>> knowledge on automotive matters in a cars newsgroup on the
>>>> basis of
>>>>  >>> being a qualified motor mechanic. ppl here who are that, have
>>>> raised
>>>>  >>> doubt he is since he's been wrong, and given bad advice, on
>>>> numerous
>>>>  >>> occasions. in fact Xeno has stated he cannot be qualified since
>>>>  >>> there's no registration number in his name in the relevant
>>>> govt data
>>>>  >>> base. I've stated that any qualifications I posses are
>>>> irrelevant to
>>>>  >>> automotive matters, and further I have no qualifications that are
>>>>  >>> relevant, and only speak from personal experience working on
>>>> my own
>>>>  >>> cars. and no one is 'demanding' that noddy 'reveals' any
>>>>  >>> qualifications, only that he proves those he claims he has,
>>>> and for
>>>>  >>> the reasons I've just given.
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>>>> That's convenient so that your claims cannot be tested.
>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>> they don't need to be. you're free to believe what I say or
>>>> not.
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>> Just as you are free to believe or not others claims, but it is
>>>>  >>>> total hypocrisy to demand from others that which you aren't
>>>> willing
>>>>  >>>> to do yourself.
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>> see above reply
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >> Total cop-out - you're still a little hypocrite.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  > bullshit. you can't admit I'm right in what I said. and I see I'm
>>>>  > 'little' again. you're an idiot. you'd rather support a fraud than
>>>>  > maintain your integrity. and btw care to cite where I've
>>>> *demanded* that
>>>>  > he prove he's qualified? and btw, since you seem to be
>>>> intellectually
>>>>  > challenged these days, asking someone *why* they won't do
>>>> something, and
>>>>  > discussing why they don't or haven't done it, is *not* demanding
>>>> that
>>>>  > they do it. my phone was charging the other day, and i sent a
>>>> text from
>>>>  > my old phone to a friend. they didn't recognize the number, and the
>>>>  > reply came back "who is this? I demand to know right now!"
>>>> that's an
>>>>  > example of a demand, just so you know what a demand actually is.
>>>>
>>>> You're a very angry little
>>>>
>>>> ** oh I'm 'little' again, or is it still?
>>>
>>> Still
>>>
>>>> man peter,
>>>>
>>>> ** rubbish. you call that angry? with apologies to John Paul Jones
>>>> let me say.. "I have not yet begun to be angry"
>>>
>>> Oooh scary.
>>>
>>>> you need to chill out and not take some irrelevant news group so
>>>> seriously.
>>>>
>>>> ** so as usual you have not addressed anything I said, just run away..
>>>
>>> You don't have anything substantive to address.
>>>
>>>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in
>>>> your own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>>>
>>>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but
>>>> you just run away!
>>>
>>> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.
>>
>>
>> you're a joke. you belong with jonz, the fraudster, and the other
>> riff raff.
>>
>>
> The thing that you don't realise is that I don't take all this seriously,

On 27/02/2022 9:37 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 10:34 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 8:06 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in
>>>>> your own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but
>>>>> you just run away!
>>>>
>>>> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.
>>>
>>>
>>> you're a joke. you belong with jonz, the fraudster, and the other
>>> riff raff.
>>>
>>
>> Great substantive argument there little man. Keith has not run away,
>> but has handed you a whipping which you must like as you keep coming
>> back for more.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>
> you really are a first class dickhead. if you had at least half a brain,
> and any honesty, you would see that he has done nothing of the sort.
> cute remarks never defeat rationality. and don't concern yourself about
> me coming back for more. I have his number now. there's no point in
> talking sense to him (or you!). you noddy, and keith are all one of a
> kind. you all belong in the same basket.
>
>

These clowns justify their actions like Putin justified his invasion of
Ukraine.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 28/02/2022 12:51 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 11:37 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:

>> cute remarks never defeat rationality. and don't concern yourself
>> about me coming back for more. I have his number now.
>
> Really. It doesn't seem to add up.

ROTFL :)

Arguments about "rationality" from a bloke who thinks that CGI generated
animations of trucks in a game are *real* is about as funny as it gets.
The man is as dumb as a fence post and is out of his depth on *any*
subject yet will insist on arguing.

That's the height of stupidity right there.

Space left for the FLC to offer encouraging comment here ↓↓↓↓↓

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 01:27:11 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> On 27/02/2022 9:37 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 10:34 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 8:06 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in
>>>>>> your own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but
>>>>>> you just run away!
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you're a joke. you belong with jonz, the fraudster, and the other
>>>> riff raff.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great substantive argument there little man. Keith has not run away,
>>> but has handed you a whipping which you must like as you keep coming
>>> back for more.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>
>> you really are a first class dickhead. if you had at least half a brain,
>> and any honesty, you would see that he has done nothing of the sort.
>> cute remarks never defeat rationality. and don't concern yourself about
>> me coming back for more. I have his number now. there's no point in
>> talking sense to him (or you!). you noddy, and keith are all one of a
>> kind. you all belong in the same basket.
>>
>
> These clowns justify their actions like Putin justified his invasion of
> Ukraine.

It's worse than that.
Putin doesn't have Right on his side, but he does have Might. Fraudster &
The Enablers have neither.

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 00:57:38 +1100, Yosemite Sam wrote:

> On 27/02/2022 11:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 8:06 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 1:42 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 12:17 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 10:48 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 6:41 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:28:01 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to boost your own ego. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. Go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fawning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow up to that from xeno, but nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from clocky?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon" Oct 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either he proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided or found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated, "yes" was the only answer you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> If there is only one course of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> We will just call this Keef's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity. That's a problem for you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrational and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enunciated above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity" as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll wait..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to
>>>>>>>>>>>> NoddyLiar to
>>>>>>>>>>>> prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys
>>>>>>>>>>> Automotive" didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>> are lying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are being obtuse and idiotic to the point of being Not
>>>>>>>>>> Worth Reading.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's an understatement.
>>>>>>>>> He's now arguing against his own argument FFS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like Bart Simpson, write this out a hundred times. "FRAUDSTER
>>>>>>>>>> MADE THE
>>>>>>>>>> CLAIM. THE ONUS IS ON HIM TO PROVE IT."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Believe what you want clocky, history shows that you will
>>>>>>>> believe whatever is convenient to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your posting history shows you will run and dodge when confronted
>>>>>>> with sound argument that negates what you say. maybe your
>>>>>>> intellect is not as big as you believe it to be. maybe it's just
>>>>>>> 'little'..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have yet to see a "Sound argument" in this place.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ah yes.. your usual cop out whenever you are challenged or criticised.
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> (I accidentally deleted the original of this post but here's the text)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for
>>>>> checking out
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> what people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for
>>>>> trawling
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> through record offices looking for something to hang on
>>>>> noddy,
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> don't you detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been
>>>>> registered
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> for 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> wanted, order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> entire process *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere
>>>>> minutes in
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> fact. Really easy if a trade registration number is given. I
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> used to do the lookups *for the college* back in the days
>>>>> when a
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> former apprentice wanted to have a go at completing his
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> apprenticeship, in most cases where they had completed their
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> time but not their college work hence failed to receive
>>>>> their
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> certificate of proficiency. When a record isn't on the
>>>>> computer
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> database, one gets suspicious of claims made since *all*
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> automotive records for every automotive trade are maintained
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place
>>>>> records
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> records aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as
>>>>> far as
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> the government is concerned. No records exist in Darren's
>>>>> name
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove me wrong any time he
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> likes. ;-)
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>> well said! (little felix squeaked) keefy apparently has no
>>>>> prob
>>>>>  >>>>>>> with ppl claiming qualifications they don't have, trading
>>>>> with
>>>>>  >>>>>>> deception and duping their customers.
>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>> I've never claimed any qualifications at all. However, you
>>>>> have
>>>>>  >>>>>> implied that you do have some
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>> no I have not implied that I have some I have stated that I do.
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>> but don't even reveal what they are.
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>> they're not relevant to posting here
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>> Very relevant when you are demanding that others reveal theirs
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>> as I've seen explained to you more than once, noddy is proffering
>>>>>  >>> knowledge on automotive matters in a cars newsgroup on the
>>>>> basis of
>>>>>  >>> being a qualified motor mechanic. ppl here who are that, have
>>>>> raised
>>>>>  >>> doubt he is since he's been wrong, and given bad advice, on
>>>>> numerous
>>>>>  >>> occasions. in fact Xeno has stated he cannot be qualified since
>>>>>  >>> there's no registration number in his name in the relevant
>>>>> govt data
>>>>>  >>> base. I've stated that any qualifications I posses are
>>>>> irrelevant to
>>>>>  >>> automotive matters, and further I have no qualifications that are
>>>>>  >>> relevant, and only speak from personal experience working on
>>>>> my own
>>>>>  >>> cars. and no one is 'demanding' that noddy 'reveals' any
>>>>>  >>> qualifications, only that he proves those he claims he has,
>>>>> and for
>>>>>  >>> the reasons I've just given.
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>> That's convenient so that your claims cannot be tested.
>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>> they don't need to be. you're free to believe what I say or
>>>>> not.
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>> Just as you are free to believe or not others claims, but it is
>>>>>  >>>> total hypocrisy to demand from others that which you aren't
>>>>> willing
>>>>>  >>>> to do yourself.
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>> see above reply
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >> Total cop-out - you're still a little hypocrite.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > bullshit. you can't admit I'm right in what I said. and I see I'm
>>>>>  > 'little' again. you're an idiot. you'd rather support a fraud than
>>>>>  > maintain your integrity. and btw care to cite where I've
>>>>> *demanded* that
>>>>>  > he prove he's qualified? and btw, since you seem to be
>>>>> intellectually
>>>>>  > challenged these days, asking someone *why* they won't do
>>>>> something, and
>>>>>  > discussing why they don't or haven't done it, is *not* demanding
>>>>> that
>>>>>  > they do it. my phone was charging the other day, and i sent a
>>>>> text from
>>>>>  > my old phone to a friend. they didn't recognize the number, and the
>>>>>  > reply came back "who is this? I demand to know right now!"
>>>>> that's an
>>>>>  > example of a demand, just so you know what a demand actually is.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a very angry little
>>>>>
>>>>> ** oh I'm 'little' again, or is it still?
>>>>
>>>> Still
>>>>
>>>>> man peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> ** rubbish. you call that angry? with apologies to John Paul Jones
>>>>> let me say.. "I have not yet begun to be angry"
>>>>
>>>> Oooh scary.
>>>>
>>>>> you need to chill out and not take some irrelevant news group so
>>>>> seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** so as usual you have not addressed anything I said, just run away..
>>>>
>>>> You don't have anything substantive to address.
>>>>
>>>>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in
>>>>> your own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but
>>>>> you just run away!
>>>>
>>>> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.
>>>
>>>
>>> you're a joke. you belong with jonz, the fraudster, and the other
>>> riff raff.
>>>
>>>
>> The thing that you don't realise is that I don't take all this seriously,
>
> oh i do realise it.. now.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 23:51:38 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:

> On 27/02/2022 11:37 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:

>>
>> you really are a first class dickhead. if you had at least half a brain,
>> and any honesty, you would see that he has done nothing of the sort.
>
> I have a very good brain which is why I can see he has whipped you.

Congratulations Gumps! You are now the official WR holder for contradicting
yourself in the fewest words!

> I'm the most honest person you know.

You don't mean "person", you mean "troll".

Anyhoo felix... if you keep biting, they'll keep trolling.

Besides, there is absolutely no point. University studies show that The
Fraudster has failed to present one particle of proof (still) and that
keith has, completely expectedly, tripped over his ego and faceplanted into
the Caboolture mud. They've all conceded, so all you/we need to do now is
to give the pot a gentle, occassional stir and let the sinners simmer until
they reduce to nothing. And judging by some of their recent dismal
performances it can't be long now!

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 07:53:22 +1100, Noddy wrote:

> On 28/02/2022 12:51 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 11:37 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>>> cute remarks never defeat rationality. and don't concern yourself
>>> about me coming back for more. I have his number now.
>>
>> Really. It doesn't seem to add up.
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> Arguments about "rationality" from a bloke who thinks that CGI generated
> animations of trucks in a game are *real* is about as funny as it gets.

Errr. Look up non sequitur Fraudster.

Here's an example...

'Gibbens tells great big lies, so he can't be trusted'.
No. Hang on. That's a fact. Take #2.

'As Gibbens is a pathetic, snivelling coward he therefore cannot put his
uggies on the correct feet'.

HTH

> The man is as dumb as a fence post and is out of his depth on *any*
> subject yet will insist on arguing.
>
> That's the height of stupidity right there.
>
> Space left for the FLC to offer encouraging comment here ↓↓↓↓↓

No worries!

Commit yourself Fraudster. He said encouragingly.

alvey
"As far as degenerating others goes, I only do that to certain people and
you're one of them because you're a fucking twat who *deserves* it".

“My command of the language is quite good even if I do say so myself.”

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 28/02/2022 3:27 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 9:37 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 10:34 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 8:06 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in
>>>>>> your own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but
>>>>>> you just run away!
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you're a joke. you belong with jonz, the fraudster, and the other
>>>> riff raff.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great substantive argument there little man. Keith has not run away,
>>> but has handed you a whipping which you must like as you keep coming
>>> back for more.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>
>> you really are a first class dickhead. if you had at least half a
>> brain, and any honesty, you would see that he has done nothing of the
>> sort. cute remarks never defeat rationality. and don't concern
>> yourself about me coming back for more. I have his number now. there's
>> no point in talking sense to him (or you!). you noddy, and keith are
>> all one of a kind. you all belong in the same basket.
>>
>>
>
>
> These clowns justify their actions like Putin justified his invasion of
> Ukraine.
>
One step away from the usual Hitler comparisons.

On 27/02/2022 11:57 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 11:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 8:06 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2022 8:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 1:42 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 12:17 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 10:48 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2022 6:41 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:28:01 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to boost your own ego. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. Go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fawning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow up to that from xeno, but nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from clocky?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon" Oct 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either he proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided or found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated, "yes" was the only answer you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> If there is only one course of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>> We will just call this Keef's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity. That's a problem for you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrational and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enunciated above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity" as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll wait..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to
>>>>>>>>>>>> NoddyLiar to
>>>>>>>>>>>> prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys
>>>>>>>>>>> Automotive" didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you
>>>>>>>>>>> are lying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are being obtuse and idiotic to the point of being Not
>>>>>>>>>> Worth Reading.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's an understatement.
>>>>>>>>> He's now arguing against his own argument FFS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like Bart Simpson, write this out a hundred times. "FRAUDSTER
>>>>>>>>>> MADE THE
>>>>>>>>>> CLAIM. THE ONUS IS ON HIM TO PROVE IT."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Believe what you want clocky, history shows that you will
>>>>>>>> believe whatever is convenient to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your posting history shows you will run and dodge when confronted
>>>>>>> with sound argument that negates what you say. maybe your
>>>>>>> intellect is not as big as you believe it to be. maybe it's just
>>>>>>> 'little'..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have yet to see a "Sound argument" in this place.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ah yes.. your usual cop out whenever you are challenged or criticised.
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> (I accidentally deleted the original of this post but here's the text)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for
>>>>> checking out
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> what people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for
>>>>> trawling
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> through record offices looking for something to hang on
>>>>> noddy,
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> don't you detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been
>>>>> registered
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> for 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> wanted, order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> entire process *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere
>>>>> minutes in
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> fact. Really easy if a trade registration number is given. I
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> used to do the lookups *for the college* back in the days
>>>>> when a
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> former apprentice wanted to have a go at completing his
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> apprenticeship, in most cases where they had completed their
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> time but not their college work hence failed to receive
>>>>> their
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> certificate of proficiency. When a record isn't on the
>>>>> computer
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> database, one gets suspicious of claims made since *all*
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> automotive records for every automotive trade are maintained
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place
>>>>> records
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> records aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as
>>>>> far as
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> the government is concerned. No records exist in Darren's
>>>>> name
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove me wrong any time he
>>>>>  >>>>>>>> likes. ;-)
>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>> well said! (little felix squeaked) keefy apparently has no
>>>>> prob
>>>>>  >>>>>>> with ppl claiming qualifications they don't have, trading
>>>>> with
>>>>>  >>>>>>> deception and duping their customers.
>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>> I've never claimed any qualifications at all. However, you
>>>>> have
>>>>>  >>>>>> implied that you do have some
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>> no I have not implied that I have some I have stated that I do.
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>> but don't even reveal what they are.
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>> they're not relevant to posting here
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>> Very relevant when you are demanding that others reveal theirs
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>> as I've seen explained to you more than once, noddy is proffering
>>>>>  >>> knowledge on automotive matters in a cars newsgroup on the
>>>>> basis of
>>>>>  >>> being a qualified motor mechanic. ppl here who are that, have
>>>>> raised
>>>>>  >>> doubt he is since he's been wrong, and given bad advice, on
>>>>> numerous
>>>>>  >>> occasions. in fact Xeno has stated he cannot be qualified since
>>>>>  >>> there's no registration number in his name in the relevant
>>>>> govt data
>>>>>  >>> base. I've stated that any qualifications I posses are
>>>>> irrelevant to
>>>>>  >>> automotive matters, and further I have no qualifications that are
>>>>>  >>> relevant, and only speak from personal experience working on
>>>>> my own
>>>>>  >>> cars. and no one is 'demanding' that noddy 'reveals' any
>>>>>  >>> qualifications, only that he proves those he claims he has,
>>>>> and for
>>>>>  >>> the reasons I've just given.
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>> That's convenient so that your claims cannot be tested.
>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>> they don't need to be. you're free to believe what I say or
>>>>> not.
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>> Just as you are free to believe or not others claims, but it is
>>>>>  >>>> total hypocrisy to demand from others that which you aren't
>>>>> willing
>>>>>  >>>> to do yourself.
>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>> see above reply
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >> Total cop-out - you're still a little hypocrite.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > bullshit. you can't admit I'm right in what I said. and I see I'm
>>>>>  > 'little' again. you're an idiot. you'd rather support a fraud than
>>>>>  > maintain your integrity. and btw care to cite where I've
>>>>> *demanded* that
>>>>>  > he prove he's qualified? and btw, since you seem to be
>>>>> intellectually
>>>>>  > challenged these days, asking someone *why* they won't do
>>>>> something, and
>>>>>  > discussing why they don't or haven't done it, is *not* demanding
>>>>> that
>>>>>  > they do it. my phone was charging the other day, and i sent a
>>>>> text from
>>>>>  > my old phone to a friend. they didn't recognize the number, and the
>>>>>  > reply came back "who is this? I demand to know right now!"
>>>>> that's an
>>>>>  > example of a demand, just so you know what a demand actually is.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a very angry little
>>>>>
>>>>> ** oh I'm 'little' again, or is it still?
>>>>
>>>> Still
>>>>
>>>>> man peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> ** rubbish. you call that angry? with apologies to John Paul Jones
>>>>> let me say.. "I have not yet begun to be angry"
>>>>
>>>> Oooh scary.
>>>>
>>>>> you need to chill out and not take some irrelevant news group so
>>>>> seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** so as usual you have not addressed anything I said, just run away..
>>>>
>>>> You don't have anything substantive to address.
>>>>
>>>>> You and the other horsemen of the apocalypse are so bound up in
>>>>> your own righteousness that no other opinion can be considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** not at all I offer sound argument again expressed opinion but
>>>>> you just run away!
>>>>
>>>> "Sound argument" is a matter of opinion - yours alone.
>>>
>>>
>>> you're a joke. you belong with jonz, the fraudster, and the other
>>> riff raff.
>>>
>>>
>> The thing that you don't realise is that I don't take all this seriously,
>
>
> oh i do realise it.. now.
>
>
>> it's just entertainment. I don't care if alvey writes stupid little
>> epithets, you stamp your foot in petulance, or clocky questions my
>> sanity, it's all just fun watching other's stupidity.
>
>
> thanks for having the decency at least to admit you've just been wasting
> ppls time, and that you're a pretentious conceited arrogant arsehole,
> and fuck you for treating us with contempt.

On 28/02/2022 7:53 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 28/02/2022 12:51 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 27/02/2022 11:37 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>>> cute remarks never defeat rationality. and don't concern yourself
>>> about me coming back for more. I have his number now.
>>
>> Really. It doesn't seem to add up.
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> Arguments about "rationality" from a bloke who thinks that CGI
> generated animations of trucks in a game are *real* is about as funny
> as it gets. The man is as dumb as a fence post and is out of his depth
> on *any* subject yet will insist on arguing.
>
> That's the height of stupidity right there.
>
> Space left for the FLC to offer encouraging comment here ↓↓↓↓↓
>
>

another thing that completely fails to defeat rational argument is
criticizing or attacking the poster, and especially citing irrelevant
events, and giving opinion, while completely failing to address the
arguments, which is pretty much SOP for you.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"His self serving ego pumping comments just
read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy