keithr0 <user@account.invalid> 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 did, at Darren’s parents home in Altona and latterly at the Merrimu Mesa
domicile. No hard evidence it ever existed , according to government
records, in Darren’s name at the Slough Estate in Altona as per his
*claim*. Much like his claimed trade qualifications, the government has no
record of them either - and they are the issuing body for such matters.

On 21/02/2022 8:34 pm, Xeno wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> 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 did, at Darren’s parents home in Altona and latterly at the Merrimu Mesa
> domicile. No hard evidence it ever existed , according to government
> records, in Darren’s name at the Slough Estate in Altona as per his
> *claim*. Much like his claimed trade qualifications, the government has no
> record of them either - and they are the issuing body for such matters.
>
>

Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 21/02/2022 8:34 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> 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 did, at Darren’s parents home in Altona and latterly at the Merrimu Mesa
>> domicile. No hard evidence it ever existed , according to government
>> records, in Darren’s name at the Slough Estate in Altona as per his
>> *claim*. Much like his claimed trade qualifications, the government has no
>> record of them either - and they are the issuing body for such matters.
>>
>>
>
> It was just a registered business name. and if he's doing work in his
> 'tin shed' now and doesn't have an ABN he's breaking the law
>
Yep, that’s all it was, a registration. Made Darren feel important and, it
has to be said, he needed something, anything, because IRL he’s a total
nondescript! It’s why he felt the pressing need to invent his multiple
apprenticeships and trade qualifications, all bogus of course.

On 21/02/2022 3:44 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 21/02/2022 12:23 pm, alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:19:37 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/02/2022 10:58 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:30:29 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Never mind all that...
>>>>
>>>> Gumps, I've been buying Samsung SSDs for a while now, probably about
>>>> 8, and
>>>> had two turn their toes up. You have any comments/experience with them?
>>>> They keep getting good reviews, but one should get better than a 25%
>>>> fail
>>>> rate.
>>>>
>>>> Note: Most are for storage/backup, only two get regular use.
>>>
>>> I use them in most of my machines. I have had one fail in about 40
>>> overall. (I have around 16 notebooks / pc's over a couple of locations,
>>> some with multiple drives, plus some in external backup drives.)
>>>
>>> Your sample size is very small.
>>>
>>> Generally I have found them extremely reliable and providing you install
>>> the magician software and do the firmware updates when released they are
>>> fairly reliable.
>>>
>>> Were the drives installed using best practice? (That is removing the
>>> system from power and using a static strap to remove any chance of
>>> static discharge)
>>>
>>> Had you installed the management software?
>>>
>>> Are the systems running on a UPS to get clean power?
>>>
>>> Were there any other events such as electrical storms that may have
>>> contributed to their failure? (Given your location is in an area where
>>> storms are frequent and leaving systems on could cause adverse
>>> outcomes.)
>>
>> Apologies, I left out a key piece of info. They're all externals.
>>
>>
>
> What did Samsung Magician report?

Also, how are you powering them down? You should "Eject" the drive
before disconnecting it as they can be easily corrupted if you just pull
the plug on them.

On 21/02/2022 6:02 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 20/02/2022 10:37 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 20/2/2022 3:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2022 11:37 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:43 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 19/02/2022 10:36 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> and you're on record saying you don't care if ppl lie or not and
>>>>>> it doesn't matter if they do. i just told you why it does matter.
>>>>>> you're an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK show me where I said that I don't care if people lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ffs are you not following the thread?
>>>>
>>>> "For the record, I have no idea what qualifications noddy has or
>>>> whether he did or did not run a business called noddys automotive,
>>>> and neither do I care in the least one way or another."
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Where does that condone lying?
>>
>> By running away from *calling it out* for what it is - lying.
>>
> ROTFL, so the only option is to agree with you, now that's real arrogance.

keith stated in the thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Oct 7 2021

"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

Applied to Noddy it means he is lying, according to your statement
above. Remaining complicit to his lying in silence not only condones it
but helps enable it.

On 21/02/2022 5:58 pm, Xeno wrote:
> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 21/02/2022 8:34 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> 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 did, at Darren’s parents home in Altona and latterly at the Merrimu Mesa
>>> domicile. No hard evidence it ever existed , according to government
>>> records, in Darren’s name at the Slough Estate in Altona as per his
>>> *claim*. Much like his claimed trade qualifications, the government has no
>>> record of them either - and they are the issuing body for such matters.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It was just a registered business name. and if he's doing work in his
>> 'tin shed' now and doesn't have an ABN he's breaking the law
>>
> Yep, that’s all it was, a registration. Made Darren feel important and, it
> has to be said, he needed something, anything, because IRL he’s a total
> nondescript! It’s why he felt the pressing need to invent his multiple
> apprenticeships and trade qualifications, all bogus of course.
>

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 16:52:20 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:

> On 21/02/2022 2:23 pm, alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:19:37 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/02/2022 10:58 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:30:29 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Never mind all that...
>>>>
>>>> Gumps, I've been buying Samsung SSDs for a while now, probably about 8, and
>>>> had two turn their toes up. You have any comments/experience with them?
>>>> They keep getting good reviews, but one should get better than a 25% fail
>>>> rate.
>>>>
>>>> Note: Most are for storage/backup, only two get regular use.
>>>
>>> I use them in most of my machines. I have had one fail in about 40
>>> overall. (I have around 16 notebooks / pc's over a couple of locations,
>>> some with multiple drives, plus some in external backup drives.)
>>>
>>> Your sample size is very small.
>>>
>>> Generally I have found them extremely reliable and providing you install
>>> the magician software and do the firmware updates when released they are
>>> fairly reliable.
>>>
>>> Were the drives installed using best practice? (That is removing the
>>> system from power and using a static strap to remove any chance of
>>> static discharge)
>>>
>>> Had you installed the management software?
>>>
>>> Are the systems running on a UPS to get clean power?
>>>
>>> Were there any other events such as electrical storms that may have
>>> contributed to their failure? (Given your location is in an area where
>>> storms are frequent and leaving systems on could cause adverse outcomes.)
>>
>> Apologies, I left out a key piece of info. They're all externals.
>
> being externals they are subject to some extra issues. There is a point
> of failure where the usb cable plugs into the drive where it can suffer
> from both mechanical and electrical damage.
>
> Did you look at the drive and see if it was a standard 2.5" hdd in an
> enclosure or was it a drive with the external component onboard.

Nyet. Just bashed 'em with the hammer until they were thoroughly
irretreviable. (Have always done that since Pam & Tommy were hot).

> WD used
> to make 2.5" drives where the circuit board included the external
> connector for the usb and they were a pita as people kept breaking the
> usb connector off. If it was a standard 2.5" drive in a caddy it may
> have been possible to put it in another caddy to check if it was the
> drive or the caddy that had failed.

Will try that if it happens again.
>
> The samsung magician software should also work and advise of there are
> firmware updates needed for the drives.
>
> The biggest cause of failure with most 2.5" external drives is people
> putting them in bags with the cable still attached

Yep, I've been advising ppl not to do that since Forever.

> or being rough when connecting the cable to the caddy.

Again, Not Guilty.

Thanks Gumps.

alvey

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

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 15:44:45 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> On 21/02/2022 12:23 pm, alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:19:37 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/02/2022 10:58 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:30:29 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Never mind all that...
>>>>
>>>> Gumps, I've been buying Samsung SSDs for a while now, probably about 8, and
>>>> had two turn their toes up. You have any comments/experience with them?
>>>> They keep getting good reviews, but one should get better than a 25% fail
>>>> rate.
>>>>
>>>> Note: Most are for storage/backup, only two get regular use.
>>>
>>> I use them in most of my machines. I have had one fail in about 40
>>> overall. (I have around 16 notebooks / pc's over a couple of locations,
>>> some with multiple drives, plus some in external backup drives.)
>>>
>>> Your sample size is very small.
>>>
>>> Generally I have found them extremely reliable and providing you install
>>> the magician software and do the firmware updates when released they are
>>> fairly reliable.
>>>
>>> Were the drives installed using best practice? (That is removing the
>>> system from power and using a static strap to remove any chance of
>>> static discharge)
>>>
>>> Had you installed the management software?
>>>
>>> Are the systems running on a UPS to get clean power?
>>>
>>> Were there any other events such as electrical storms that may have
>>> contributed to their failure? (Given your location is in an area where
>>> storms are frequent and leaving systems on could cause adverse outcomes.)
>>
>> Apologies, I left out a key piece of info. They're all externals.
>>
>
> What did Samsung Magician report?

Don't recall. Last failure was a while ago.
I've got one with "dodgy" written on it (T5 500gb). Will test it later.

alvey

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

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 21:12:22 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> On 21/02/2022 3:44 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 21/02/2022 12:23 pm, alvey wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:19:37 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/02/2022 10:58 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:30:29 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Never mind all that...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gumps, I've been buying Samsung SSDs for a while now, probably about
>>>>> 8, and
>>>>> had two turn their toes up. You have any comments/experience with them?
>>>>> They keep getting good reviews, but one should get better than a 25%
>>>>> fail
>>>>> rate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: Most are for storage/backup, only two get regular use.
>>>>
>>>> I use them in most of my machines. I have had one fail in about 40
>>>> overall. (I have around 16 notebooks / pc's over a couple of locations,
>>>> some with multiple drives, plus some in external backup drives.)
>>>>
>>>> Your sample size is very small.
>>>>
>>>> Generally I have found them extremely reliable and providing you install
>>>> the magician software and do the firmware updates when released they are
>>>> fairly reliable.
>>>>
>>>> Were the drives installed using best practice? (That is removing the
>>>> system from power and using a static strap to remove any chance of
>>>> static discharge)
>>>>
>>>> Had you installed the management software?
>>>>
>>>> Are the systems running on a UPS to get clean power?
>>>>
>>>> Were there any other events such as electrical storms that may have
>>>> contributed to their failure? (Given your location is in an area where
>>>> storms are frequent and leaving systems on could cause adverse
>>>> outcomes.)
>>>
>>> Apologies, I left out a key piece of info. They're all externals.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What did Samsung Magician report?
>
> Also, how are you powering them down? You should "Eject" the drive
> before disconnecting it as they can be easily corrupted if you just pull
> the plug on them.

Yep, but I don't think that's an option on the TV(s) I've used them in.

alvey

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

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 17:04:04 +1000, 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.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 21:40:52 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> On 21/02/2022 5:58 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote:

>>>
>> Yep, that’s all it was, a registration. Made Darren feel important and,

And so he could save a few dollars at Bunnings et al.

>> it has to be said, he needed something, anything, because IRL he’s a total
>> nondescript! It’s why he felt the pressing need to invent his multiple
>> apprenticeships and trade qualifications, all bogus of course.
>>
>
> The VACC membership claim... no records of that either?

No record of him or the wife owning a property on the Sunny Coast as
claimed

No record of *any* Gibbens serving in the Korean war, as claimed for his
father.

Seeing a pattern?

alvey

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

On 22/02/2022 7:41 am, alvey wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 17:04:04 +1000, 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.
> Oh don't try to be cute keith. Of course proving the existance of something
> that never existed can't be done, hence the numerous variations of, "On the
> balance of probabilities..." that abound in Law. And if you're feeling smug
> about trying this piss poor gambit then think on this. Even the Fraudster
> has tried it. Apu, a dismal Fail.
>
> I won't go through the considerable evidence against the Fraudster as this
> has been repeatedly done, and besides, it's actually fairly unnecessary.
> It's unnecessary because the Fraudster's claim has one bloody great big
> gaping hole in it. He won't provide any proof to support it. A killer blow
> in any case, but he makes it factorially worse by previously being a rabid
> and prolific advocate of the, "You made the claim. You prove it or be
> regarded as a liar!" school. And if you want a larf, ask him why he won't
> do that simple thing.

On 22/02/2022 7:48 am, alvey wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 21:40:52 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2022 5:58 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Yep, that’s all it was, a registration. Made Darren feel important and,
> And so he could save a few dollars at Bunnings et al.
>
>>> it has to be said, he needed something, anything, because IRL he’s a total
>>> nondescript! It’s why he felt the pressing need to invent his multiple
>>> apprenticeships and trade qualifications, all bogus of course.

three apprenticeships and two trade qualifications

>>>
>> The VACC membership claim... no records of that either?
> No record of him or the wife owning a property on the Sunny Coast as
> claimed
>
> No record of *any* Gibbens serving in the Korean war, as claimed for his
> father.
>
> Seeing a pattern?

repaired more exotic cars than you can poke a stick at

Grange wine collection

Service manager for Honda who sent him to Japan

etc., etc.,

>
>
>
> alvey
>

--
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 22/02/2022 4:18 am, alvey wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 21:12:22 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2022 3:44 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 21/02/2022 12:23 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:19:37 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/02/2022 10:58 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:30:29 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never mind all that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gumps, I've been buying Samsung SSDs for a while now, probably about
>>>>>> 8, and
>>>>>> had two turn their toes up. You have any comments/experience with them?
>>>>>> They keep getting good reviews, but one should get better than a 25%
>>>>>> fail
>>>>>> rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: Most are for storage/backup, only two get regular use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I use them in most of my machines. I have had one fail in about 40
>>>>> overall. (I have around 16 notebooks / pc's over a couple of locations,
>>>>> some with multiple drives, plus some in external backup drives.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your sample size is very small.
>>>>>
>>>>> Generally I have found them extremely reliable and providing you install
>>>>> the magician software and do the firmware updates when released they are
>>>>> fairly reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Were the drives installed using best practice? (That is removing the
>>>>> system from power and using a static strap to remove any chance of
>>>>> static discharge)
>>>>>
>>>>> Had you installed the management software?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are the systems running on a UPS to get clean power?
>>>>>
>>>>> Were there any other events such as electrical storms that may have
>>>>> contributed to their failure? (Given your location is in an area where
>>>>> storms are frequent and leaving systems on could cause adverse
>>>>> outcomes.)
>>>>
>>>> Apologies, I left out a key piece of info. They're all externals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What did Samsung Magician report?
>>
>> Also, how are you powering them down? You should "Eject" the drive
>> before disconnecting it as they can be easily corrupted if you just pull
>> the plug on them.
>
> Yep, but I don't think that's an option on the TV(s) I've used them in.
>
>

Drive compatibility with TV's can be an issue and can cause corruption,
I'd be Googling the TV and the drive to see if there are such issues
with your particular setup(s). You could possibly recover/restore those
SSD's by plugging them into a computer. It will be interesting to see
what Samsung Magician reports in any event.

On 22/02/2022 9:59 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 4:18 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 21:12:22 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/02/2022 3:44 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:23 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:19:37 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 10:58 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 23:30:29 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Never mind all that...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gumps, I've been buying Samsung SSDs for a while now, probably
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> 8, and
>>>>>>> had two turn their toes up. You have any comments/experience
>>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>>> They keep getting good reviews, but one should get better than a
>>>>>>> 25%
>>>>>>> fail
>>>>>>> rate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note: Most are for storage/backup, only two get regular use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I use them in most of my machines. I have had one fail in about 40
>>>>>> overall. (I have around 16 notebooks / pc's over a couple of
>>>>>> locations,
>>>>>> some with multiple drives, plus some in external backup drives.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your sample size is very small.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Generally I have found them extremely reliable and providing you
>>>>>> install
>>>>>> the magician software and do the firmware updates when released
>>>>>> they are
>>>>>> fairly reliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were the drives installed using best practice? (That is removing the
>>>>>> system from power and using a static strap to remove any chance of
>>>>>> static discharge)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Had you installed the management software?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are the systems running on a UPS to get clean power?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were there any other events such as electrical storms that may have
>>>>>> contributed to their failure? (Given your location is in an area
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> storms are frequent and leaving systems on could cause adverse
>>>>>> outcomes.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies, I left out a key piece of info. They're all externals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What did Samsung Magician report?
>>>
>>> Also, how are you powering them down? You should "Eject" the drive
>>> before disconnecting it as they can be easily corrupted if you just
>>> pull
>>> the plug on them.
>>
>> Yep, but I don't think that's an option on the TV(s) I've used them in.
>>
>>
>
> Drive compatibility with TV's can be an issue and can cause
> corruption, I'd be Googling the TV and the drive to see if there are
> such issues with your particular setup(s). You could possibly
> recover/restore those SSD's by plugging them into a computer. It will
> be interesting to see what Samsung Magician reports in any event.
>
>
>
>

I gotta laugh. after being told how wonderful SSD's are, I'm now hearing
about all the probs with them, 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 22/02/2022 9:30 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 9:59 am, Clocky wrote:

>>
>> Drive compatibility with TV's can be an issue and can cause
>> corruption, I'd be Googling the TV and the drive to see if there are
>> such issues with your particular setup(s). You could possibly
>> recover/restore those SSD's by plugging them into a computer. It will
>> be interesting to see what Samsung Magician reports in any event.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I gotta laugh. after being told how wonderful SSD's are, I'm now hearing
> about all the probs with them, lol
>
>
It's not just SSD's that have issues with TV's. Normal flash drives do
as well, and mechanical hard drives are not immune to corruption from
them as well.

The notebook I am using right now is 7 or 8 years old and has a SSD
drive working in it without issue. (It's a Toshiba Kirabook which is
ultralight and has been very reliable.)

On 22/02/2022 11:12 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 9:30 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 22/02/2022 9:59 am, Clocky wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Drive compatibility with TV's can be an issue and can cause
>>> corruption, I'd be Googling the TV and the drive to see if there are
>>> such issues with your particular setup(s). You could possibly
>>> recover/restore those SSD's by plugging them into a computer. It
>>> will be interesting to see what Samsung Magician reports in any event.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I gotta laugh. after being told how wonderful SSD's are, I'm now
>> hearing about all the probs with them, lol
>>
>>
> It's not just SSD's that have issues with TV's. Normal flash drives do
> as well, and mechanical hard drives are not immune to corruption from
> them as well.
>
> The notebook I am using right now is 7 or 8 years old and has a SSD
> drive working in it without issue. (It's a Toshiba Kirabook which is
> ultralight and has been very reliable.)

what's the purpose of using drives of any sort with a tv anyway? I
assume to play movies? if the tv has wifi or LAN capability the
best/easiest way to play movies would be to store them on computer then
access via the home network. or just use the good ol DVD player.

--
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 22/02/2022 11:12 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 9:30 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 22/02/2022 9:59 am, Clocky wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Drive compatibility with TV's can be an issue and can cause
>>> corruption, I'd be Googling the TV and the drive to see if there are
>>> such issues with your particular setup(s). You could possibly
>>> recover/restore those SSD's by plugging them into a computer. It will
>>> be interesting to see what Samsung Magician reports in any event.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I gotta laugh. after being told how wonderful SSD's are, I'm now
>> hearing about all the probs with them, lol
>>
>>
> It's not just SSD's that have issues with TV's. Normal flash drives do
> as well, and mechanical hard drives are not immune to corruption from
> them as well.

Indeed. Felix is not only completely clueless, but totally afraid of
anything "technical". Makes me wonder how he copes with owning a car
that was built in this century.

> The notebook I am using right now is 7 or 8 years old and has a SSD
> drive working in it without issue. (It's a Toshiba Kirabook which is
> ultralight and has been very reliable.)

I've got an OCZ Vertex drive here that I bought when they first came
out. It's gotta be *well* over 10 years old and has never missed a beat
despite some of the problems they had with the early ones.

Felix can jump up and down as much as he likes about whatever "tech
frgility" perceptions he has, but the reality is that *nothing* is ever
100% reliable. SSD's have proven themselves to be as reliable as every
other form of mass data storage, with the added bonus of blistering data
transfer rates that are simply not possible with old style physical hard
drives and in today's world of bloated software where shit-tonnes of
data needs to be ripped off storage and read into memory the speed
benefit *alone* makes SSD's the only logical choice.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 22/02/2022 11:37 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 11:12 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 22/02/2022 9:30 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2022 9:59 am, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Drive compatibility with TV's can be an issue and can cause
>>>> corruption, I'd be Googling the TV and the drive to see if there
>>>> are such issues with your particular setup(s). You could possibly
>>>> recover/restore those SSD's by plugging them into a computer. It
>>>> will be interesting to see what Samsung Magician reports in any event.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I gotta laugh. after being told how wonderful SSD's are, I'm now
>>> hearing about all the probs with them, lol
>>>
>>>
>> It's not just SSD's that have issues with TV's. Normal flash drives
>> do as well, and mechanical hard drives are not immune to corruption
>> from them as well.
>
> Indeed. Felix is not only completely clueless, but totally afraid of
> anything "technical". Makes me wonder how he copes with owning a car
> that was built in this century.

Oh, I just got another laugh. ya gotta laugh at this moron. he just
makes up stuff to have a go. I currently use five computers that I've
built that are connected electronically to one monitor and keyboard, so
I can switch between them at the press of a button. I run OS's from
win95 to win10 and occasionally Linux. I have a decent workshop set up
for computer and other electronic work, and Clocky could tell you that I
sent him a heap of electronic components recently when I was clearing
out some stuff. I also have a decent AV setup with Foxtel, Fetch, two
PVR's, DVD, VCR, and security cameras connected. but yeah, nonuts is
right! I'm 'afraid' of anything technical, lol.

>
>> The notebook I am using right now is 7 or 8 years old and has a SSD
>> drive working in it without issue. (It's a Toshiba Kirabook which is
>> ultralight and has been very reliable.)
>
> I've got an OCZ Vertex drive here that I bought when they first came
> out. It's gotta be *well* over 10 years old and has never missed a
> beat despite some of the problems they had with the early ones.
>
> Felix can jump up and down as much as he likes about whatever "tech
> frgility" perceptions he has, but the reality is that *nothing* is
> ever 100% reliable. SSD's have proven themselves to be as reliable as
> every other form of mass data storage, with the added bonus of
> blistering data transfer rates that are simply not possible with old
> style physical hard drives and in today's world of bloated software
> where shit-tonnes of data needs to be ripped off storage and read into
> memory the speed benefit *alone* makes SSD's the only logical choice.
>
>
>
>

--
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 22/2/2022 12:40 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 21/02/2022 5:58 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/02/2022 8:34 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> 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 did, at Darren’s parents home in Altona and latterly at the
>>>> Merrimu Mesa
>>>> domicile. No hard evidence it ever existed , according to government
>>>> records, in Darren’s name at the Slough Estate in Altona as per his
>>>> *claim*. Much like his claimed trade qualifications, the government
>>>> has no
>>>> record of them either - and they are the issuing body for such matters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was just a registered business name. and if he's doing work in his
>>> 'tin shed' now and doesn't have an ABN he's breaking the law
>>>
>> Yep, that’s all it was, a registration. Made Darren feel important
>> and, it
>> has to be said, he needed something, anything, because IRL he’s a total
>> nondescript! It’s why he felt the pressing need to invent his multiple
>> apprenticeships and trade qualifications, all bogus of course.
>>
>
> The VACC membership claim... no records of that either?
>
That was a very easy one to disprove. All it took was an email query and
the answer was: another of Darren's lies and self aggrandising claims.
ATBE! Darren sure sticks to form! Lying must be an absolutely ingrained
habit in him by now!

On 22/02/2022 12:07 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 11:37 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/02/2022 11:12 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2022 9:30 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/2022 9:59 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Drive compatibility with TV's can be an issue and can cause
>>>>> corruption, I'd be Googling the TV and the drive to see if there
>>>>> are such issues with your particular setup(s). You could possibly
>>>>> recover/restore those SSD's by plugging them into a computer. It
>>>>> will be interesting to see what Samsung Magician reports in any
>>>>> event.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I gotta laugh. after being told how wonderful SSD's are, I'm now
>>>> hearing about all the probs with them, lol
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's not just SSD's that have issues with TV's. Normal flash drives
>>> do as well, and mechanical hard drives are not immune to corruption
>>> from them as well.
>>
>> Indeed. Felix is not only completely clueless, but totally afraid of
>> anything "technical". Makes me wonder how he copes with owning a car
>> that was built in this century.
>
>
> Oh, I just got another laugh. ya gotta laugh at this moron. he just
> makes up stuff to have a go. I currently use five computers that I've
> built that are connected electronically to one monitor and keyboard,

and mouse of course. I gerfot the mouse! .. oh, and I also forgot to
mention I have a PC in the AV setup as well.

> so I can switch between them at the press of a button. I run OS's from
> win95 to win10 and occasionally Linux. I have a decent workshop set up
> for computer and other electronic work, and Clocky could tell you that
> I sent him a heap of electronic components recently when I was
> clearing out some stuff. I also have a decent AV setup with Foxtel,
> Fetch, two PVR's, DVD, VCR, and security cameras connected. but yeah,
> nonuts is right! I'm 'afraid' of anything technical, lol.
>
>
>>
>>> The notebook I am using right now is 7 or 8 years old and has a SSD
>>> drive working in it without issue. (It's a Toshiba Kirabook which is
>>> ultralight and has been very reliable.)
>>
>> I've got an OCZ Vertex drive here that I bought when they first came
>> out. It's gotta be *well* over 10 years old and has never missed a
>> beat despite some of the problems they had with the early ones.
>>
>> Felix can jump up and down as much as he likes about whatever "tech
>> frgility" perceptions he has, but the reality is that *nothing* is
>> ever 100% reliable. SSD's have proven themselves to be as reliable as
>> every other form of mass data storage, with the added bonus of
>> blistering data transfer rates that are simply not possible with old
>> style physical hard drives and in today's world of bloated software
>> where shit-tonnes of data needs to be ripped off storage and read
>> into memory the speed benefit *alone* makes SSD's the only logical
>> choice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--
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 22/02/2022 12:08 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 22/2/2022 12:40 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 21/02/2022 5:58 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21/02/2022 8:34 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> 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 did, at Darren’s parents home in Altona and latterly at the
>>>>> Merrimu Mesa
>>>>> domicile. No hard evidence it ever existed , according to government
>>>>> records, in Darren’s name at the Slough Estate in Altona as per his
>>>>> *claim*. Much like his claimed trade qualifications, the
>>>>> government has no
>>>>> record of them either - and they are the issuing body for such
>>>>> matters.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was just a registered business name. and if he's doing work in his
>>>> 'tin shed' now and doesn't have an ABN he's breaking the law
>>>>
>>> Yep, that’s all it was, a registration. Made Darren feel important
>>> and, it
>>> has to be said, he needed something, anything, because IRL he’s a total
>>> nondescript! It’s why he felt the pressing need to invent his multiple
>>> apprenticeships and trade qualifications, all bogus of course.
>>>
>>
>> The VACC membership claim... no records of that either?
>>
> That was a very easy one to disprove. All it took was an email query
> and the answer was: another of Darren's lies and self aggrandising
> claims. ATBE!  Darren sure sticks to form! Lying must be an absolutely
> ingrained habit in him by now!
>
>

On 22/02/2022 12:07 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 11:37 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 22/02/2022 11:12 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2022 9:30 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/2022 9:59 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Drive compatibility with TV's can be an issue and can cause
>>>>> corruption, I'd be Googling the TV and the drive to see if there
>>>>> are such issues with your particular setup(s). You could possibly
>>>>> recover/restore those SSD's by plugging them into a computer. It
>>>>> will be interesting to see what Samsung Magician reports in any
>>>>> event.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I gotta laugh. after being told how wonderful SSD's are, I'm now
>>>> hearing about all the probs with them, lol
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's not just SSD's that have issues with TV's. Normal flash drives
>>> do as well, and mechanical hard drives are not immune to corruption
>>> from them as well.
>>
>> Indeed. Felix is not only completely clueless, but totally afraid of
>> anything "technical". Makes me wonder how he copes with owning a car
>> that was built in this century.
>
>
> Oh, I just got another laugh. ya gotta laugh at this moron. he just
> makes up stuff to have a go. I currently use five computers that I've
> built that are connected electronically to one monitor, keyboard, and
> mouse so I can switch between them at the press of a button. I run
> OS's from win95 to win10 and occasionally Linux. I have a decent
> workshop set up for computer and other electronic work, and Clocky
> could tell you that I sent him a heap of electronic components
> recently when I was clearing out some stuff. I also have a decent AV
> setup with Foxtel, Fetch, two PVR's, DVD, VCR, PC, and security
> cameras connected. but yeah, nonuts is right! I'm 'afraid' of anything
> technical, lol.
>

and I might as well mention a Mac and Powerbook and another PC in the
'den' ie. workshop

--
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 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.
>

On 22/2/2022 9:35 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 7:41 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 17:04:04 +1000, 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.
>> Oh don't try to be cute keith. Of course proving the existance of
>> something
>> that never existed can't be done, hence the numerous variations of,
>> "On the
>> balance of probabilities..." that abound in Law. And if you're feeling
>> smug
>> about trying this piss poor gambit then think on this. Even the Fraudster
>> has tried it. Apu, a dismal Fail.
>>
>> I won't go through the considerable evidence against the Fraudster as
>> this
>> has been repeatedly done, and besides, it's actually fairly unnecessary.
>> It's unnecessary because the Fraudster's claim has one bloody great big
>> gaping hole in it. He won't provide any proof to support it. A killer
>> blow
>> in any case, but he makes it factorially worse by previously being a
>> rabid
>> and prolific advocate of the, "You made the claim. You prove it or be
>> regarded as a liar!" school. And if you want a larf, ask him why he won't
>> do that simple thing.
>
>
> hehe bet he wont. :)
>
You'll win that bet - mainly because he can't stump up evidence he
doesn't have or, as in the case of his grandiose claims, never earned.
>
>>
>> Go on, here's your chance to regain some much needed cred.
>>
>>
>> alvey
>>
>>
>