On 26/02/2022 11:27 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 26/02/2022 9:36 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 26/02/2022 10:05 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 26/2/22 15:28, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or leave it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an opportunity to boost your own ego. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the accusation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning follow up to that from xeno, but nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from clocky? Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Oct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, if it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just stated, "yes" was the only answer you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have given here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and lack integrity. That's a problem for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being irrational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly enunciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe - see
>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack integrity"
>>>>>>>>> as proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>> reasoning. I'll wait..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to NoddyLiar
>>>>> to prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>
>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>
>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive"
>>>> didn't exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore
>>>> you are lying.
>>>>
>>>> In fact xeno did say that it did exist in some form or other
>>>
>>> The only place it existed was as a registered business at his
>>> *home(s), never at the Slough Estate of Altona and not for the
>>> duration of time claimed.
>>
>>
>> yep
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out what
>>>> people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling through
>>>> record offices looking for something to hang on noddy, don't you
>>>> detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>
>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered for
>>> 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive wanted,
>>> order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The entire process
>>> *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere minutes in fact. Really easy
>>> if a trade registration number is given. I used to do the lookups
>>> *for the college* back in the days when a former apprentice wanted
>>> to have a go at completing his apprenticeship, in most cases where
>>> they had completed their time but not their college work hence
>>> failed to receive their certificate of proficiency. When a record
>>> isn't on the computer database, one gets suspicious of claims made
>>> since *all* automotive records for every automotive trade are
>>> maintained online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place
>>> records are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for
>>> people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the records
>>> aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as far as the government
>>> is concerned. No records exist in Darren's name *anywhere*. He can
>>> feel free to prove me wrong any time he likes. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> well said! (little felix squeaked) keefy apparently has no prob with
>> ppl claiming qualifications they don't have, trading with deception
>> and duping their customers.
>
> I've never claimed any qualifications at all. However, you have
> implied that you do have some

On 27/02/2022 12:07 am, Xeno wrote:
> On 26/2/22 23:25, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 26/02/2022 9:05 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 26/2/22 15:28, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or leave it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an opportunity to boost your own ego. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the accusation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning follow up to that from xeno, but nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from clocky? Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Oct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, if it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just stated, "yes" was the only answer you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have given here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and lack integrity. That's a problem for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being irrational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly enunciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe - see
>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack integrity"
>>>>>>>>> as proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>> reasoning. I'll wait..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to NoddyLiar
>>>>> to prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>
>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>
>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive"
>>>> didn't exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore
>>>> you are lying.
>>>>
>>>> In fact xeno did say that it did exist in some form or other
>>>
>>> The only place it existed was as a registered business at his
>>> *home(s), never at the Slough Estate of Altona and not for the
>>> duration of time claimed.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out what
>>>> people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling through
>>>> record offices looking for something to hang on noddy, don't you
>>>> detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>
>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered for
>>> 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive wanted,
>>> order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The entire process
>>> *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere minutes in fact. Really easy
>>> if a trade registration number is given. I used to do the lookups
>>> *for the college* back in the days when a former apprentice wanted
>>> to have a go at completing his apprenticeship, in most cases where
>>> they had completed their time but not their college work hence
>>> failed to receive their certificate of proficiency. When a record
>>> isn't on the computer database, one gets suspicious of claims made
>>> since *all* automotive records for every automotive trade are
>>> maintained online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place
>>> records are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for
>>> people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the records
>>> aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as far as the government
>>> is concerned. No records exist in Darren's name *anywhere*. He can
>>> feel free to prove me wrong any time he likes.  ;-)
>>
>> Claiming that what you did was OK but grumpy is a stalker is still
>> hypocrisy.
>
> Nope, Grumpy has a penchant for revealing *personal details* whilst I
> revealed a clear cut case of *business fraud*.

On 26/02/2022 2:28 pm, keithr0 wrote:

> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out what
> people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling through
> record offices looking for something to hang on noddy, don't you detect
> a wiff of hypocrisy there?

Sarcasm mode on... None at all Keith. Sarcasm mode off...

Here you have a classic example of double standards as applied by the flc.

On 26/02/2022 11:07 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 26/2/22 23:25, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 26/02/2022 9:05 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 26/2/22 15:28, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah blah]",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or leave it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an opportunity to boost your own ego. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the accusation. Go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning follow up to that from xeno, but nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from clocky? Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Oct 7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, if it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated, "yes" was the only answer you could have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and lack integrity. That's a problem for you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being irrational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly enunciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe - see
>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack integrity"
>>>>>>>>> as proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>> reasoning. I'll wait..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to NoddyLiar
>>>>> to prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>
>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>
>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive"
>>>> didn't exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you
>>>> are lying.
>>>>
>>>> In fact xeno did say that it did exist in some form or other
>>>
>>> The only place it existed was as a registered business at his
>>> *home(s), never at the Slough Estate of Altona and not for the
>>> duration of time claimed.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out what
>>>> people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling through
>>>> record offices looking for something to hang on noddy, don't you
>>>> detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>
>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered for
>>> 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive wanted,
>>> order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The entire process
>>> *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere minutes in fact. Really easy if
>>> a trade registration number is given. I used to do the lookups *for
>>> the college* back in the days when a former apprentice wanted to have
>>> a go at completing his apprenticeship, in most cases where they had
>>> completed their time but not their college work hence failed to
>>> receive their certificate of proficiency. When a record isn't on the
>>> computer database, one gets suspicious of claims made since *all*
>>> automotive records for every automotive trade are maintained online
>>> at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place records are kept is
>>> PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for people wanting to,
>>> say, replace a lost certificate. If the records aren't there at PROV,
>>> then they don't exist as far as the government is concerned. No
>>> records exist in Darren's name *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove
>>> me wrong any time he likes.  ;-)
>>
>> Claiming that what you did was OK but grumpy is a stalker is still
>> hypocrisy.
>
> Nope, Grumpy has a penchant for revealing *personal details* whilst I
> revealed a clear cut case of *business fraud*.
>

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:30:42 +1000, keithr0 wrote:

> On 22/02/2022 6:41 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,
>>
> There

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:28:01 +1000, keithr0 wrote:

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

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 17:21:35 +1100, Noddy wrote:

> On 26/02/2022 3:28 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>
>>>
>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive" didn't
>> exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you are lying.
>>
>> In fact xeno did say that it did exist in some form or other
>>
>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out what
>> people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling through
>> record offices looking for something to hang on noddy, don't you detect
>> a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>
> You're wasting your time.

Trying to justify you? He sure is!

snip immaterial

alvey

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

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 19:43:33 +1000, keithr0 wrote:

> On 26/02/2022 7:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 26/02/2022 12:28 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah blah]",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or leave it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to boost your own ego. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the accusation. Go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning follow up to that from xeno, but nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from clocky? Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves you lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Oct 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is true, so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided or found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated, "yes" was the only answer you could have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and lack integrity. That's a problem for you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then that's your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being irrational and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly enunciated above
>>>>>>>>>>>> by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe - see
>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack integrity" as
>>>>>>>> proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>> reasoning. I'll wait..
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to NoddyLiar to
>>>> prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>
>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>
>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>
>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive"
>>> didn't exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you
>>> are lying.
>>>
>>
>> You stated on the 7th October 2021;
>>
>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so,
>>  if it is unproven, he is lying."
>>
>> So Noddy, having presented *no* proof for his claims, is, according to
>> *you*, lying.
>>
>> <snip irrelevant>
>
> I could reply but I really can't be bothered with this circular argument
> any more. So the subject is closed, just like your mind.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 00:07:41 +1100, Xeno wrote:

>
> Nope, Grumpy has a penchant for revealing *personal details* whilst I
> revealed a clear cut case of *business fraud*.

Pardon?
Have I missed, or misunderstood, something?
I thought that exposing the Big Lie of NAoA was exclusively *my* work.

alvey

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

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 00:49:29 +1100, Yosemite Sam wrote:

> On 27/02/2022 12:07 am, Xeno wrote:

>> Nope, Grumpy has a penchant for revealing *personal details* whilst I
>> revealed a clear cut case of *business fraud*.
>
> correct. grubby has tried to reveal the identity of ppl here. you have
> sought only to verify noddy's claims.

Frankly lads, I don't believe that it matters any longer. The words and
actions of Fraudster and the Enablers can only be interpreted as
confessions.

Game over Gibbens.
You're a loser. Always have been, always will be.

alvey

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

On 26/02/2022 11:49 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:

>
> correct. grubby has tried to reveal the identity of ppl here. you have
> sought only to verify noddy's claims.
>

You're my hero xeno says the guy who took my photo and posted it on his
own website. Hypocrite.

On 27/02/2022 10:14 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 26/02/2022 11:49 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> correct. grubby has tried to reveal the identity of ppl here. you
>> have sought only to verify noddy's claims.
>>
>
> You're my hero xeno says the guy who took my photo and posted it on
> his own website. Hypocrite.
>

you posted a link here to a video about someone you believed was me that
would have identified me. you sought to reveal the identity of the
person posting as felix (or whatever nick it was then) and made a big
song and dance about it. I copied a photo from your fb page *which was
publicly viewable*, and hosted and linked to it. I did not publish it on
a 'website' as such. there was no attempt to identify you or provide any
info about you. you freaked out and contacted my ISP who requested that
I remove the pic under threat of legal action, lol. see the difference
here? I suggest anyone with at least half a brain would.

--
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 26/2/2022 11:25 pm, keithr0 wrote:

>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out what
>>> people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling through
>>> record offices looking for something to hang on noddy, don't you
>>> detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>
>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered for 35+
>> years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive wanted, order it
>> out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The entire process *at PROV*
>> takes no time at all - mere minutes in fact. Really easy if a trade
>> registration number is given. I used to do the lookups *for the
>> college* back in the days when a former apprentice wanted to have a go
>> at completing his apprenticeship, in most cases where they had
>> completed their time but not their college work hence failed to
>> receive their certificate of proficiency. When a record isn't on the
>> computer database, one gets suspicious of claims made since *all*
>> automotive records for every automotive trade are maintained online at
>> the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place records are kept is PROV
>> and said records are a *final recourse* for people wanting to, say,
>> replace a lost certificate. If the records aren't there at PROV, then
>> they don't exist as far as the government is concerned. No records
>> exist in Darren's name *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove me wrong
>> any time he likes.  ;-)
>
> Claiming that what you did was OK but grumpy is a stalker is still
> hypocrisy.

IMHO there are 2 types of "qualifications", one proven by a piece of
paper, the other gained by years of hands on experience.
I neither know or care if Noddy has a piece of paper but there is no
doubt that he is qualified and competent.
I've told the story here of a good mate of mine who worked as a mechanic
managing a large Government workshop in Brisbane, one day his boss asked
him if he was a qualified mechanic and he replied no, his boss said that
he could sort that for him and after a while he received a piece of
paper stating that he was now "qualified".
I don't know what the process was but he now has the piece of paper not
that it made any difference, he still had the same job and same pay
because his employer (the QLD Govt) recognized his competence.
Another example of the value or otherwise of qualifications is 2 of my
sisters, both qualified teachers and they studied at the same teachers
college, the older sister was hopeless as a teacher and didn't last long
but the other had a long and successful career despite both having the
same qualifications.

--
Daryl

On 27/02/2022 10:14 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 26/02/2022 11:49 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> correct. grubby has tried to reveal the identity of ppl here. you have
>> sought only to verify noddy's claims.
>>
>
> You're my hero xeno says the guy who took my photo and posted it on his
> own website. Hypocrite.

They're *all* ridiculous hypocrites.

Jerky Jerkoff banging on about being the victim of personal attacks yet
he had no problem whatsoever in splashing my profile pic all over the
internet to amuse himself while at the same time "protecting the
identity" of a moron who he himself decides to "investigate" for his
incessant bullshit. Felix carries on like the fucking *retarded* lap dog
he is when he thinks he sees other people doing what *he* does himself
and sees no problem with it, and worst of all is that mentally defective
unicorn riding cunt of a thing Clasener who, apart from being *the* most
clueless "mechanic" I've ever come across *in my life*, thinks it's
perfectly normal to go all the way to the public records office in
*another state* to retrieve a copy of a report which he then posts
publicly revealing names and addresses of people which is in direct
contravention of the laws regarding the release of such documents to
individuals.

All for the sake of trying to get the upper hand in a ridiculously
redundant newsgroup argument.

You would need to go a *very* long way indeed to find a more insanely
shallow bunch of inferiority complexes than these fucked up people here.....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 27/02/2022 10:53 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 26/2/2022 11:25 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>
>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out what
>>>> people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling through
>>>> record offices looking for something to hang on noddy, don't you
>>>> detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>
>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered for
>>> 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive wanted,
>>> order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The entire process
>>> *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere minutes in fact. Really easy
>>> if a trade registration number is given. I used to do the lookups
>>> *for the college* back in the days when a former apprentice wanted
>>> to have a go at completing his apprenticeship, in most cases where
>>> they had completed their time but not their college work hence
>>> failed to receive their certificate of proficiency. When a record
>>> isn't on the computer database, one gets suspicious of claims made
>>> since *all* automotive records for every automotive trade are
>>> maintained online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place
>>> records are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for
>>> people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the records
>>> aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as far as the government
>>> is concerned. No records exist in Darren's name *anywhere*. He can
>>> feel free to prove me wrong any time he likes.  ;-)
>>
>> Claiming that what you did was OK but grumpy is a stalker is still
>> hypocrisy.
>
>
> IMHO there are 2 types of "qualifications", one proven by a piece of
> paper, the other gained by years of hands on experience.
> I neither know or care if Noddy has a piece of paper but there is no
> doubt that he is qualified and competent.
> I've told the story here of a good mate of mine who worked as a
> mechanic managing a large Government workshop in Brisbane, one day his
> boss asked him if he was a qualified mechanic and he replied no, his
> boss said that he could sort that for him and after a while he
> received a piece of paper stating that he was now "qualified".
> I don't know what the process was but he now has the piece of paper
> not that it made any difference, he still had the same job and same
> pay because his employer (the QLD Govt) recognized his competence.
> Another example of the value or otherwise of qualifications is 2 of my
> sisters, both qualified teachers and they studied at the same teachers
> college, the older sister was hopeless as a teacher and didn't last
> long but the other had a long and successful career despite both
> having the same qualifications.
>

nice stories. however, the issue is not about how much experience or
knowledge your mate has, but whether he is a qualified motor mechanic
and has the appropriate registration he claims to have.

--
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 26/02/2022 11:47 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 26/02/2022 11:27 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 26/02/2022 9:36 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2022 10:05 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 26/2/22 15:28, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or leave it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an opportunity to boost your own ego. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the accusation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning follow up to that from xeno, but nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from clocky? Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Oct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, if it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just stated, "yes" was the only answer you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have given here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and lack integrity. That's a problem for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being irrational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly enunciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe - see
>>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack integrity"
>>>>>>>>>> as proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>>> reasoning. I'll wait..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to NoddyLiar
>>>>>> to prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive"
>>>>> didn't exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore
>>>>> you are lying.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact xeno did say that it did exist in some form or other
>>>>
>>>> The only place it existed was as a registered business at his
>>>> *home(s), never at the Slough Estate of Altona and not for the
>>>> duration of time claimed.
>>>
>>>
>>> yep
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out what
>>>>> people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling through
>>>>> record offices looking for something to hang on noddy, don't you
>>>>> detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>>
>>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered for
>>>> 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive wanted,
>>>> order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The entire process
>>>> *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere minutes in fact. Really easy
>>>> if a trade registration number is given. I used to do the lookups
>>>> *for the college* back in the days when a former apprentice wanted
>>>> to have a go at completing his apprenticeship, in most cases where
>>>> they had completed their time but not their college work hence
>>>> failed to receive their certificate of proficiency. When a record
>>>> isn't on the computer database, one gets suspicious of claims made
>>>> since *all* automotive records for every automotive trade are
>>>> maintained online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place
>>>> records are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for
>>>> people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the records
>>>> aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as far as the government
>>>> is concerned. No records exist in Darren's name *anywhere*. He can
>>>> feel free to prove me wrong any time he likes. ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> well said! (little felix squeaked) keefy apparently has no prob with
>>> ppl claiming qualifications they don't have, trading with deception
>>> and duping their customers.
>>
>> I've never claimed any qualifications at all. However, you have
>> implied that you do have some
>
> no I have not implied that I have some I have stated that I do.
>
>
>> but don't even reveal what they are.
>
>
> they're not relevant to posting here

On 26/02/2022 11:07 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 26/2/22 23:25, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 26/02/2022 9:05 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 26/2/22 15:28, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah blah]",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, you get answers. like it or leave it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an opportunity to boost your own ego. You don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer questions that go to the heart of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity however, you evade those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the accusation. Go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning follow up to that from xeno, but nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from clocky? Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Oct 7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, if it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated, "yes" was the only answer you could have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the question as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and lack integrity. That's a problem for you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being irrational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly enunciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe - see
>>>>>>>>>> truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack integrity"
>>>>>>>>> as proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>> reasoning. I'll wait..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to NoddyLiar
>>>>> to prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>
>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>
>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive"
>>>> didn't exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore you
>>>> are lying.
>>>>
>>>> In fact xeno did say that it did exist in some form or other
>>>
>>> The only place it existed was as a registered business at his
>>> *home(s), never at the Slough Estate of Altona and not for the
>>> duration of time claimed.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out what
>>>> people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling through
>>>> record offices looking for something to hang on noddy, don't you
>>>> detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>
>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered for
>>> 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive wanted,
>>> order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The entire process
>>> *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere minutes in fact. Really easy if
>>> a trade registration number is given. I used to do the lookups *for
>>> the college* back in the days when a former apprentice wanted to have
>>> a go at completing his apprenticeship, in most cases where they had
>>> completed their time but not their college work hence failed to
>>> receive their certificate of proficiency. When a record isn't on the
>>> computer database, one gets suspicious of claims made since *all*
>>> automotive records for every automotive trade are maintained online
>>> at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place records are kept is
>>> PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for people wanting to,
>>> say, replace a lost certificate. If the records aren't there at PROV,
>>> then they don't exist as far as the government is concerned. No
>>> records exist in Darren's name *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove
>>> me wrong any time he likes.  ;-)
>>
>> Claiming that what you did was OK but grumpy is a stalker is still
>> hypocrisy.
>
> Nope, Grumpy has a penchant for revealing *personal details* whilst I
> revealed a clear cut case of *business fraud*.
>
> --
> Xeno
Just another case of self justification. If it helps you to live with
yourself I suppose that it is understandable.

On 27/02/2022 9:53 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 26/2/2022 11:25 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>
>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out what
>>>> people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling through
>>>> record offices looking for something to hang on noddy, don't you
>>>> detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>
>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered for
>>> 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive wanted,
>>> order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The entire process
>>> *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere minutes in fact. Really easy if
>>> a trade registration number is given. I used to do the lookups *for
>>> the college* back in the days when a former apprentice wanted to have
>>> a go at completing his apprenticeship, in most cases where they had
>>> completed their time but not their college work hence failed to
>>> receive their certificate of proficiency. When a record isn't on the
>>> computer database, one gets suspicious of claims made since *all*
>>> automotive records for every automotive trade are maintained online
>>> at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place records are kept is
>>> PROV and said records are a *final recourse* for people wanting to,
>>> say, replace a lost certificate. If the records aren't there at PROV,
>>> then they don't exist as far as the government is concerned. No
>>> records exist in Darren's name *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove
>>> me wrong any time he likes.  ;-)
>>
>> Claiming that what you did was OK but grumpy is a stalker is still
>> hypocrisy.
>
>
> IMHO there are 2 types of "qualifications", one proven by a piece of
> paper, the other gained by years of hands on experience.
> I neither know or care if Noddy has a piece of paper but there is no
> doubt that he is qualified and competent.
> I've told the story here of a good mate of mine who worked as a mechanic
> managing a large Government workshop in Brisbane, one day his boss asked
> him if he was a qualified mechanic and he replied no, his boss said that
> he could sort that for him and after a while he received a piece of
> paper stating that he was now "qualified".
> I don't know what the process was but he now has the piece of paper not
> that it made any difference, he still had the same job and same pay
> because his employer (the QLD Govt) recognized his competence.
> Another example of the value or otherwise of qualifications is 2 of my
> sisters, both qualified teachers and they studied at the same teachers
> college, the older sister was hopeless as a teacher and didn't last long
> but the other had a long and successful career despite both having the
> same qualifications.
>
I agree, competence is the only qualification worth having.

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

On 27/02/2022 11:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 26/02/2022 11:47 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 26/02/2022 11:27 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2022 9:36 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 26/02/2022 10:05 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>> On 26/2/22 15:28, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give answers, you get answers. like it or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave it the choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an opportunity to boost your own ego.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't answer questions that go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart of your integrity however, you evade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the accusation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning follow up to that from xeno, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing from clocky? Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, if it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just stated, "yes" was the only answer you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have given here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and lack integrity. That's a problem for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being irrational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly enunciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe -
>>>>>>>>>>>> see truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack
>>>>>>>>>>> integrity" as proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>>>> reasoning. I'll wait..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to
>>>>>>> NoddyLiar to prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive"
>>>>>> didn't exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore
>>>>>> you are lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact xeno did say that it did exist in some form or other
>>>>>
>>>>> The only place it existed was as a registered business at his
>>>>> *home(s), never at the Slough Estate of Altona and not for the
>>>>> duration of time claimed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yep
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out
>>>>>> what people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling
>>>>>> through record offices looking for something to hang on noddy,
>>>>>> don't you detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered for
>>>>> 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive wanted,
>>>>> order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The entire process
>>>>> *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere minutes in fact. Really easy
>>>>> if a trade registration number is given. I used to do the lookups
>>>>> *for the college* back in the days when a former apprentice wanted
>>>>> to have a go at completing his apprenticeship, in most cases where
>>>>> they had completed their time but not their college work hence
>>>>> failed to receive their certificate of proficiency. When a record
>>>>> isn't on the computer database, one gets suspicious of claims made
>>>>> since *all* automotive records for every automotive trade are
>>>>> maintained online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place
>>>>> records are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse*
>>>>> for people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the
>>>>> records aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as far as the
>>>>> government is concerned. No records exist in Darren's name
>>>>> *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove me wrong any time he likes. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> well said! (little felix squeaked) keefy apparently has no prob
>>>> with ppl claiming qualifications they don't have, trading with
>>>> deception and duping their customers.
>>>
>>> I've never claimed any qualifications at all. However, you have
>>> implied that you do have some
>>
>> no I have not implied that I have some I have stated that I do.
>>
>>
>>> but don't even reveal what they are.
>>
>>
>> they're not relevant to posting here
>
> Very relevant when you are demanding that others reveal theirs

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

On 27/02/2022 11:04 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 11:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 26/02/2022 11:47 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2022 11:27 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 26/02/2022 9:36 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 26/02/2022 10:05 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/2/22 15:28, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 1:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:04 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 4:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 5:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 3:30 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:14 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:50 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2022 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 8:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 5:34 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 3:41 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 12:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 6:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2022 1:32 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:27 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 2:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 12:24 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 5:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/2022 12:05 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "expect answers to [keith blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blah]", but I *do* expect answers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate questions concerning claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which someone makes. Whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it or not, there's a big difference there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter alvey, the bargain is you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give answers, you get answers. like it or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave it the choice is yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You only answer questions that provide you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an opportunity to boost your own ego.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't answer questions that go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart of your integrity however, you evade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those wholesale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? now you get to back up the accusation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, make my day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual smartarse nonsense from alvey and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning follow up to that from xeno, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing from clocky? Odd that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh you want an example question that proves you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack integrity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the thread "May need to buy petrol soon"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 7 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You assert to another poster:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made the assertion either he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves it or he is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. not providing proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> false, only that it's unproven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> He asserts that the claim is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, if it is unproven, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your assertion above that "He asserts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I then asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> In that case NoddyLiar, claiming he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is qualified for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> *no* evidence has been provided or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found anywhere, is lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whatever" isn't an answer. Given what you had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just stated, "yes" was the only answer you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have given here if you had *any* integrity at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then went on to evade answering the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as seen below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> "yes" is your only option Keith :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> I choose my own options, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>> You only had one option to choose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> If there is only one course of action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available then there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> option - basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Basic logic says you're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> We will just call this Keef's paradox :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fill your boots you can, and based on past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance will, believe anything that you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are your own words and prove you dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions and lack integrity. That's a problem for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'whatever' doesn't cut it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cuts it for me, if it doesn't for you then that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, it's your problem because you are being irrational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and illogical and dishonest as clocky proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only in your tiny mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nup according to logic and reason as clearly enunciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above by Clocky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is what you want to believe then go ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe it because it's true. iow a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You believe it because that is what you want to believe -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see truthiness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nup it's a fact that you " dodge questions and lack
>>>>>>>>>>>> integrity" as proven by Clocky above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Truthiness again, that's what you want to believe. Enjoy your
>>>>>>>>>>> private little wonderland.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ok I'll play your silly game. prove the fault in Clockies
>>>>>>>>>> reasoning. I'll wait..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prove that "Noddys Automotive" never existed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone to prove the negative, it's up to
>>>>>>>> NoddyLiar to prove the positive since he made the claim(s).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said it yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
>>>>>>>> it is unproven, he is lying."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep and your little group are asserting that "Noddys Automotive"
>>>>>>> didn't exist, you have provided no proof of that claim therefore
>>>>>>> you are lying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact xeno did say that it did exist in some form or other
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only place it existed was as a registered business at his
>>>>>> *home(s), never at the Slough Estate of Altona and not for the
>>>>>> duration of time claimed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yep
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interestingly, apparently grumpy is a stalker for checking out
>>>>>>> what people have said in other NGs, but xeno isn't for trawling
>>>>>>> through record offices looking for something to hang on noddy,
>>>>>>> don't you detect a wiff of hypocrisy there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hardly trawling. Register online at PROV (I've been registered for
>>>>>> 35+ years), look up apprentice records, pick the archive wanted,
>>>>>> order it out, drop in to PROV and check it out. The entire process
>>>>>> *at PROV* takes no time at all - mere minutes in fact. Really easy
>>>>>> if a trade registration number is given. I used to do the lookups
>>>>>> *for the college* back in the days when a former apprentice wanted
>>>>>> to have a go at completing his apprenticeship, in most cases where
>>>>>> they had completed their time but not their college work hence
>>>>>> failed to receive their certificate of proficiency. When a record
>>>>>> isn't on the computer database, one gets suspicious of claims made
>>>>>> since *all* automotive records for every automotive trade are
>>>>>> maintained online at the ITC since 1978-80. The only other place
>>>>>> records are kept is PROV and said records are a *final recourse*
>>>>>> for people wanting to, say, replace a lost certificate. If the
>>>>>> records aren't there at PROV, then they don't exist as far as the
>>>>>> government is concerned. No records exist in Darren's name
>>>>>> *anywhere*. He can feel free to prove me wrong any time he likes. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> well said! (little felix squeaked) keefy apparently has no prob
>>>>> with ppl claiming qualifications they don't have, trading with
>>>>> deception and duping their customers.
>>>>
>>>> I've never claimed any qualifications at all. However, you have
>>>> implied that you do have some
>>>
>>> no I have not implied that I have some I have stated that I do.
>>>
>>>
>>>> but don't even reveal what they are.
>>>
>>>
>>> they're not relevant to posting here
>>
>> Very relevant when you are demanding that others reveal theirs
>
>
> as I've seen explained to you more than once, noddy is proffering
> knowledge on automotive matters in a cars newsgroup on the basis of
> being a qualified motor mechanic. ppl here who are that, have raised
> doubt he is since he's been wrong, and given bad advice, on numerous
> occasions. in fact Xeno has stated he cannot be qualified since there's
> no registration number in his name in the relevant govt data base. I've
> stated that any qualifications I posses are irrelevant to automotive
> matters, and further I have no qualifications that are relevant, and
> only speak from personal experience working on my own cars. and no one
> is 'demanding' that noddy 'reveals' any qualifications, only that he
> proves those he claims he has, and for the reasons I've just given.
>
>
>>
>>>> That's convenient so that your claims cannot be tested.
>>>>
>>>
>>> they don't need to be. you're free to believe what I say or not.
>>
>> Just as you are free to believe or not others claims, but it is total
>> hypocrisy to demand from others that which you aren't willing to do
>> yourself.
>>
>
> see above reply
>
>
Total cop-out - you're still a little hypocrite.

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

On 27/02/2022 11:28 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 9:53 am, Daryl wrote:

>> IMHO there are 2 types of "qualifications", one proven by a piece of
>> paper, the other gained by years of hands on experience.
>> I neither know or care if Noddy has a piece of paper but there is no
>> doubt that he is qualified and competent.
>> I've told the story here of a good mate of mine who worked as a
>> mechanic managing a large Government workshop in Brisbane, one day his
>> boss asked him if he was a qualified mechanic and he replied no, his
>> boss said that he could sort that for him and after a while he
>> received a piece of paper stating that he was now "qualified".
>> I don't know what the process was but he now has the piece of paper
>> not that it made any difference, he still had the same job and same
>> pay because his employer (the QLD Govt) recognized his competence.
>> Another example of the value or otherwise of qualifications is 2 of my
>> sisters, both qualified teachers and they studied at the same teachers
>> college, the older sister was hopeless as a teacher and didn't last
>> long but the other had a long and successful career despite both
>> having the same qualifications.
>>
> I agree, competence is the only qualification worth having.

Abso-fugging-lutely.

The great irony in all of this ridiculousness is that the man who has
made more noise than anyone about the "importance" of structured
learning and formal training processes is the *very* one who has
repeatedly shown that despite his "formal qualifications" he is utterly
fucking *clueless* and has to invent nonsensical terms like "transferred
experience" in order to appear relevant to anything.

Quite simply, if there was an award for the most clueless "qualified"
person on the planet Clasener would be world champion :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 27/02/2022 12:16 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 11:04 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:

>> as I've seen explained to you more than once, noddy is proffering
>> knowledge on automotive matters in a cars newsgroup on the basis of
>> being a qualified motor mechanic. ppl here who are that, have raised
>> doubt he is since he's been wrong, and given bad advice, on numerous
>> occasions. in fact Xeno has stated he cannot be qualified since
>> there's no registration number in his name in the relevant govt data
>> base. I've stated that any qualifications I posses are irrelevant to
>> automotive matters, and further I have no qualifications that are
>> relevant, and only speak from personal experience working on my own
>> cars. and no one is 'demanding' that noddy 'reveals' any
>> qualifications, only that he proves those he claims he has, and for
>> the reasons I've just given.
>
>> see above reply
>>
>>
> Total cop-out - you're still a little hypocrite.

Massively so. His comments above are a bordering on insanity.

His claims that I'm guilty of "proffering knowledge on automotive
matters in a cars newsgroup on the basis of being a qualified motor
mechanic" are utterly nonsensical. I've done nothing different to anyone
else in this group other than offered an opinion, and I've never stated
that my opinion on anything in particular is worth more or less than
that of anyone else's. It is *also* utterly ridiculous to claim that no
one is 'damanding' that I reveal my qualifications when that very demand
is made around here virtually every single fucking day :)

Jesus Christ :)

This bloke is a *lunatic*, and all he's managed to achieve in writing
this load of ridiculous bullshit is to show how unhinged he actually is
in believing that I should be subject to a level of scrutiny that he and
his retarded mates are clearly exempt from.

Just when you think these morons couldn't get any more retarded.... :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.