Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 11:31 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Whenever conversation gets even *slightly* technical you bail out
>>> because it flies over your head.
>>
>> no, because I'm just not interested enough
>
> You seem interested enough to make lots of posts about it, and
> especially when the opportunity is there to make your usual smart arse
> comments. But when it starts getting technical that's when your
> "interest" suddenly and very quickly evaporates.

yes, because I'm not interested enough. it aint rocket science.. well,
maybe it is for you

>
>>> That's not a criticism of you personally, and is something most
>>> people who are not into the nitty gritty of automotive tech would
>>> do. However when you make comments like this where you declare you
>>> "have enough sense/knowledge to know in most cases if it's relevant"
>>> is when you're talking through your arse.
>>
>> that's nonsense. it's easy enough to determine relevancy. for example
>> when Xeno explained steering geometry, one didn't need to be an
>> Einstein to know that was relevant to your erroneous claim about
>> centrifugal force straightening wheels.
>
> Was it really? How so? :)

because they're both steering related.

>
>>> As you were told at the time Felix,
>>
>> by you! however, I take what you say with.. how do you put it?.. a
>> mountain size grain of salt.
>
> And yet you like to make a noise about being unbiased and capable of
> independent thought.
>
>>> A word of advice. If you *do* decide that you want to try this test,
>>> and I doubt that you will but anyway, then make sure of two
>>> conditions being met before you do: Firstly, ensure there is no
>>> other traffic or pedestrians nearby, and secondly be prepared to use
>>> the handbrake to stop as the regular service brakes will be *very*
>>> ineffective indeed :)
>
> Presumably you're not keen to carry out this basic and completely
> harmless test to see for yourself.
>
> How surprising :)

not surprising at all that I'm not interested enough to bother

>
>>> I don't reply to him, I reply to you. But I can see that replying to
>>> you is a waste of time in most cases.
>>>
>>
>> why? because I don't accept your word as gospel
>
> No, for the simple reason of the comment you mentioned above. Because
> you take what I say "with a mountain size grain of salt" which, for
> the record, is a comment I've never actually made :)

I misattributed then

>
> The point of this, which is clearly lost on you, is that it is usually
> a complete waste of time explaining anything to you because you're
> usually completely unwilling to be objective and unbiased. You have
> your moments of brilliance on occasion, and the conversations we had a
> few days ago where things like engine failures or new car running in
> processes were discussed are good examples of that, but those
> "moments" are *extremely* rare indeed and most of the time you seem
> *far* more content to carry on like a total cock.
>
> As you are now.
>

just flawed opinion born of delusion not fact

--
Have a nice day!..

alvey wrote:
> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2023 7:58 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 1/12/2023 3:18 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 9:51 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 12:37 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 12:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us to believe you sight unseen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who know and/or trust me will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Init funny how when you apply that logic to *yourself* you
>>>>>>>>>>>> see it as being completely rational and don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>> why anyone else would think otherwise, but if I do exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing it's a crime that needs to be investigated
>>>>>>>>>>>> by Interpol :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As I understand felix, he is willing to show his proof to
>>>>>>>>>>> people he trusts. This of course rules out you and the
>>>>>>>>>>> Enablers. Is that correct felix?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no, I'm just saying those who trust me will take me at my word.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is good enough for me as you don't have the long and
>>>>>>>>> inglorious history of dishonesty, unapologetic bullshit and
>>>>>>>>> cretinous abuse that surrounds the Fraudster like a
>>>>>>>>> particularly rancid fart.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And is why Felix got to review *my proof*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed, and you know it won't be plastered all over the internet
>>>>>>
>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which is exactly what the fraud and co. would do. They have form
>>>>>>> after all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes. remember grubby's rapture when he thought he had a video of me?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Don't get too cocky,
>>>>
>>>> what cocky? just stating fact
>>>>
>>>>> things are known about you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> oh really? please enlighten me via email.. keefy@ausnet.info. if
>>>> you don't, I'll assume you're talking bullshit
>>>>
>>> I do do things out in the open not secretly somewhere in the
>>> background like the team does.
>>>
>>> Your address is known.
>>
>> so you're a stalker then
>
> What's this? It's not Richardson making threats is it?
> Isn't that behaviour illegal now?
>

I believe so.

>
> alvey
> Thinking Richardson must be pretty unpopular with his neighbors if he
> does his do do out in the open.
>
>

LOL!

--
Have a nice day!..

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 11:19 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>> I do do things out in the open not secretly somewhere in the
>>> background like the team does.
>>>
>>> Your address is known.
>>
>> so you're a stalker then
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> From the bloke who was *so* interested to see where I lived that he had
> to email his mate on the quiet to get the address and come do a drive by :)

Ahhhh. Another lie (two actually) is born.

> Hahahahahahahah :)
>
> You couldn't write shit this funny if you *wanted* to :)

Half correct Fraudster. You've mastered the "shit" part, how about you
now start on the "funny" half?

alvey
Unable to recall a single instance of the Fraudster pecking out anything
'traditionally' humourous. Of his own that is. Plagiarism has been
recorded.

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 8:55 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>> Total cop-out, you are making a complete hypocrite of yourself. If
>>> you aren't prepared to do it yourself, don't expect other to.
>>>
>>
>> you're just too stupid to understand, even when it's been explained to
>> you in great detail. but when I claim to be a qualified mechanic with
>> three apprenticeships under my belt and post with authority on
>> automotive matters I promise I will post evidence of them.
>
> Hahahahahaha :)
>
> You don't even have the balls to tell anyone what you (allegedly) spent
> 30 years doing :)

Could be worse.
He could tells whopping great lies on the subject...

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 11:24 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>>>>> You have explicitly stated that you ran a successful business for 30
>>> years, but you refuse to provide any information at all about it. Yet
>>> you demand that others provide proof of what they say that they did.
>>> That's hypocrisy.
>>
>> context is everything. I'm not making ANY claims relevant to posting
>> here like noddy is.
>
> There *is* no "relevance" here Felix.

Gak! From the blowhard whose go to bleat is "irrelevant". Bizzaro.

> This is a newsgroup. Not a court of law for fuck's sake.

I'll be the judge of that... hahahahaha
But seriously folks... Is there a difference between ranting and raving?
>> and it was qualified mechanics here who first raised suspicions about
>> his claims and asked for proof.
>
> Yeah, it was. A "qualified mechanic" who can't tell the difference
> between glass and plastic, and another who doesn't understand how basic
> brake systems or carburetors work, and who thinks dealers alter ECU maps
> to compensate for engine wear.

Hey Fraudster! What happened to your whining about people rehashing old
rubbish?

> Oh my Gawd. I feel *so* ashamed.....

One of the bigger lies you've told.

>> and contrary to what you say I have not demanded anything. I have only
>> commented on his failure to support his claims, stalker.
>
> Just like you have when you claim you were a successful businessman?

Eh? This makes even less sense than his preceding waffling.

> Do yo know what the totally bizarre part about all this is Felix?

Ooh! I do! I do!
It's your responses! Where's me prize?

> Apart from the uncontrollable fascination you and your fucked up mates have
> about me and my life,

Ahhh the Ego Rampant again. To put it into cliches you may understand
Fraudster... *** EVERYBODY *** knows that you're a nutbag, but it's
perfectly simple. If you insult and abuse people you should expect some
backlash. It's that simple.

> the really funny bit is that you genuinely seem to
> think that there is a legitimate distinction between me not providing
> anything and you doing exactly the same thing :)

Well I can think of at least one significant distinction. Scale. You're
the big winner there Fraudster!

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 11:29 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> I don't think it is. His business wasn't in automotive so irrelevant
>>> (that word again) to discussions here.
>>
>> of course it's not. and nor have I made any claims about it. keefy the
>> stalker is just obsessed with me
>
>
> Irony.
>
> Felix, just out of curiosity, how many posts about me have you and your
> mates made today?

Ashley Fraudster, you should be more concerned about the lack of support
you're getting from the Enablers.

hth

alvey

Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 1/12/2023 11:31 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>

but just for the record..

>
>>
>>>> I don't reply to him, I reply to you. But I can see that replying
>>>> to you is a waste of time in most cases.
>>>>
>>>
>>> why? because I don't accept your word as gospel
>>
>> No, for the simple reason of the comment you mentioned above. Because
>> you take what I say "with a mountain size grain of salt"

and why wouldn't I, or any sensible person, when you have proven history
of lying and getting things wrong

>> which, for the record, is a comment I've never actually made :)
>
> I misattributed then
>
>>
>> The point of this, which is clearly lost on you, is that it is
>> usually a complete waste of time explaining anything to you because
>> you're usually completely unwilling to be objective and unbiased.

nonsense

>> You have your moments of brilliance on occasion, and the
>> conversations we had a few days ago where things like engine failures
>> or new car running in processes were discussed are good examples of
>> that,

which just proves what you said above wrong. as I recall we agreed on
the matter.

>> but those "moments" are *extremely* rare indeed

maybe with you, since you're more interested in abusing, insulting, and
denigrating others when they don't agree with you, than having a
rational discussion of the topic

--
Have a nice day!..

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 12:07 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:

>
> You have this fucked up idea in your head that just because someone has
> commented about themselves in a newsgroup that they're automatically
> compelled to prove it to be true to all and sundry.

Wow! The smell of desperation is making my eyes water. Or it could be
the laughter.

It is soooo wrong that it's almost satirical.

Give it up and stop embarrassing yourself Fraudster.

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 8:32 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:

> I see. So, the next time you strut around here jerking your soft on
> about how you have an unbised, open mind and are capable of independent
> thought, I'll just remind you of this hypocritical bullshit you've
> posted right here.

So you're not going in his mighty k/f felix.

I don't know if that's good news or bad news...

alvey

alvey wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 1/12/2023 11:24 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> You have explicitly stated that you ran a successful business
>>>>>>> for 30
>>>> years, but you refuse to provide any information at all about it.
>>>> Yet you demand that others provide proof of what they say that they
>>>> did. That's hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> context is everything. I'm not making ANY claims relevant to posting
>>> here like noddy is.
>>
>> There *is* no "relevance" here Felix.
>
> Gak! From the blowhard whose go to bleat is "irrelevant". Bizzaro.
>
>> This is a newsgroup. Not a court of law for fuck's sake.
>
> I'll be the judge of that... hahahahaha
> But seriously folks... Is there a difference between ranting and raving?
>>> and it was qualified mechanics here who first raised suspicions
>>> about his claims and asked for proof.
>>
>> Yeah, it was. A "qualified mechanic" who can't tell the difference
>> between glass and plastic, and another who doesn't understand how
>> basic brake systems or carburetors work, and who thinks dealers alter
>> ECU maps to compensate for engine wear.
>
> Hey Fraudster! What happened to your whining about people rehashing
> old rubbish?
>
>> Oh my Gawd. I feel *so* ashamed.....
>
> One of the bigger lies you've told.
>
>>> and contrary to what you say I have not demanded anything. I have
>>> only commented on his failure to support his claims, stalker.
>>
>> Just like you have when you claim you were a successful businessman?
>
> Eh? This makes even less sense than his preceding waffling.
>
>> Do yo know what the totally bizarre part about all this is Felix?
>
> Ooh! I do! I do!
> It's your responses! Where's me prize?

LOL

>
>> Apart from the uncontrollable fascination you and your fucked up
>> mates have about me and my life,
>
> Ahhh the Ego Rampant again. To put it into cliches you may understand
> Fraudster... *** EVERYBODY *** knows that you're a nutbag, but it's
> perfectly simple. If you insult and abuse people you should expect
> some backlash. It's that simple.
>
>> the really funny bit is that you genuinely seem to think that there
>> is a legitimate distinction between me not providing anything and you
>> doing exactly the same thing :)

except I'm not doing "exactly" the same thing, as I've explained several
times now

>
> Well I can think of at least one significant distinction. Scale.
> You're the big winner there Fraudster!
>
>
>
> alvey
>

--
Have a nice day!..

Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 1/12/2023 11:27 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>
>>>>> can't prove what he doesn't have  :)
>>>>>
>>>> But I'm allowed to ask!  ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> of course you are.
>>
>> Yeah. Repeatedly. Every single day like a totally unhinged fuckwit.
>>
>>> but note that keefy the stalker never attacks you or anyone else here
>>> for doing so except me.
>>
>> And here it is. That time in your "fun regime" where it suddenly stops
>> being fun for you and you start playing the victim.
>
> just stating the facts, stupid

Well there's a problem.
Fraudster believes that the only facts around here are what he says.

alvey

On 2/12/2023 6:43 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> alvey wrote:
>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/2023 7:58 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 3:18 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 9:51 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 12:37 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 12:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us to believe you sight unseen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who know and/or trust me will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Init funny how when you apply that logic to *yourself* you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it as being completely rational and don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why anyone else would think otherwise, but if I do exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing it's a crime that needs to be investigated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Interpol :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I understand felix, he is willing to show his proof to
>>>>>>>>>>>> people he trusts. This of course rules out you and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Enablers. Is that correct felix?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no, I'm just saying those who trust me will take me at my word.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is good enough for me as you don't have the long and
>>>>>>>>>> inglorious history of dishonesty, unapologetic bullshit and
>>>>>>>>>> cretinous abuse that surrounds the Fraudster like a
>>>>>>>>>> particularly rancid fart.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And is why Felix got to review *my proof*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed, and you know it won't be plastered all over the internet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which is exactly what the fraud and co. would do. They have form
>>>>>>>> after all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yes. remember grubby's rapture when he thought he had a video of me?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't get too cocky,
>>>>>
>>>>> what cocky? just stating fact
>>>>>
>>>>>> things are known about you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> oh really? please enlighten me via email.. keefy@ausnet.info. if
>>>>> you don't, I'll assume you're talking bullshit
>>>>>
>>>> I do do things out in the open not secretly somewhere in the
>>>> background like the team does.
>>>>
>>>> Your address is known.
>>>
>>> so you're a stalker then
>>
>> What's this? It's not Richardson making threats is it?
>> Isn't that behaviour illegal now?
>>
>
> I believe so.

Threats? Where?

WallyG wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 1/12/2023 12:07 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>>
>> You have this fucked up idea in your head that just because someone
>> has commented about themselves in a newsgroup that they're
>> automatically compelled to prove it to be true to all and sundry.

obviously he must mean Keefy..

>
> Wow! The smell of desperation is making my eyes water. Or it could be
> the laughter.

LOL

>
> It is soooo wrong that it's almost satirical.
>
> Give it up and stop embarrassing yourself Fraudster.
>
>
>
> alvey
>

--
Have a nice day!..

alvey wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 1/12/2023 8:32 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>> I see. So, the next time you strut around here jerking your soft on
>> about how you have an unbised, open mind and are capable of
>> independent thought, I'll just remind you of this hypocritical
>> bullshit you've posted right here.
>
> So you're not going in his mighty k/f felix.
>
> I don't know if that's good news or bad news...
>
>

good news. the entertainment here will remain unabated

>
> alvey
>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

alvey wrote:
> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2023 11:27 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> can't prove what he doesn't have :)
>>>>>>
>>>>> But I'm allowed to ask!  ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> of course you are.
>>>
>>> Yeah. Repeatedly. Every single day like a totally unhinged fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> but note that keefy the stalker never attacks you or anyone else
>>>> here for doing so except me.
>>>
>>> And here it is. That time in your "fun regime" where it suddenly
>>> stops being fun for you and you start playing the victim.
>>
>> just stating the facts, stupid
>
> Well there's a problem.
> Fraudster believes that the only facts around here are what he says.
>
>

that's true

> alvey

--
Have a nice day!..

On 2/12/2023 9:18 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 2/12/2023 6:43 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> alvey wrote:
>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 1/12/2023 7:58 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 3:18 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 9:51 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 12:37 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 12:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us to believe you sight unseen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who know and/or trust me will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Init funny how when you apply that logic to *yourself* you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see it as being completely rational and don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why anyone else would think otherwise, but if I do exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing it's a crime that needs to be investigated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Interpol :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I understand felix, he is willing to show his proof to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people he trusts. This of course rules out you and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enablers. Is that correct felix?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> no, I'm just saying those who trust me will take me at my word.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is good enough for me as you don't have the long and
>>>>>>>>>>> inglorious history of dishonesty, unapologetic bullshit and
>>>>>>>>>>> cretinous abuse that surrounds the Fraudster like a
>>>>>>>>>>> particularly rancid fart.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And is why Felix got to review *my proof*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed, and you know it won't be plastered all over the internet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which is exactly what the fraud and co. would do. They have
>>>>>>>>> form after all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yes. remember grubby's rapture when he thought he had a video of
>>>>>>>> me?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't get too cocky,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what cocky? just stating fact
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things are known about you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh really? please enlighten me via email.. keefy@ausnet.info. if
>>>>>> you don't, I'll assume you're talking bullshit
>>>>>>
>>>>> I do do things out in the open not secretly somewhere in the
>>>>> background like the team does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your address is known.
>>>>
>>>> so you're a stalker then
>>>
>>> What's this? It's not Richardson making threats is it?
>>> Isn't that behaviour illegal now?
>>>
>>
>> I believe so.
>
> Threats? Where?
>
>
LOL, knowing someones address is making a threat:-)
FFS it must be awful being so shit scared all the time, he must be
frightened by his own shadow.

--
Daryl

Daryl wrote:
> On 2/12/2023 9:18 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 2/12/2023 6:43 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> alvey wrote:
>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 7:58 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 3:18 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 9:51 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 12:37 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 12:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect us to believe you sight unseen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who know and/or trust me will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Init funny how when you apply that logic to *yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see it as being completely rational and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand why anyone else would think otherwise, but if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do exactly the same thing it's a crime that needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be investigated by Interpol :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I understand felix, he is willing to show his proof to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people he trusts. This of course rules out you and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enablers. Is that correct felix?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, I'm just saying those who trust me will take me at my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> word.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is good enough for me as you don't have the long and
>>>>>>>>>>>> inglorious history of dishonesty, unapologetic bullshit and
>>>>>>>>>>>> cretinous abuse that surrounds the Fraudster like a
>>>>>>>>>>>> particularly rancid fart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And is why Felix got to review *my proof*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, and you know it won't be plastered all over the internet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> which is exactly what the fraud and co. would do. They have
>>>>>>>>>> form after all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yes. remember grubby's rapture when he thought he had a video
>>>>>>>>> of me?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't get too cocky,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what cocky? just stating fact
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> things are known about you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> oh really? please enlighten me via email.. keefy@ausnet.info. if
>>>>>>> you don't, I'll assume you're talking bullshit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do do things out in the open not secretly somewhere in the
>>>>>> background like the team does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your address is known.
>>>>>
>>>>> so you're a stalker then
>>>>
>>>> What's this? It's not Richardson making threats is it?
>>>> Isn't that behaviour illegal now?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe so.
>>
>> Threats? Where?
>>
>>
> LOL, knowing someones address is making a threat:-)

"Don't get too cocky, things are known about you.Your address is known"

is a veiled threat that some action will be taken

> FFS it must be awful being so shit scared all the time, he must be
> frightened by his own shadow.
>

did I say I was? like your mate, you need better reading comprehension
skills

--
Have a nice day!..

On 2/12/2023 7:41 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>> You seem interested enough to make lots of posts about it, and
>> especially when the opportunity is there to make your usual smart arse
>> comments. But when it starts getting technical that's when your
>> "interest" suddenly and very quickly evaporates.
>
> yes, because I'm not interested enough. it aint rocket science.. well,
> maybe it is for you

If you're not interested enough, then why bump posts looking for a
response? Is it a fucking game for you? Is that how you amuse yourself
when you're bored? Trying to elicit conversation that by your own
admission you have next to no interest in?

Take a moment to explain how activity like that can be seen as anything
but infantile?

>>> that's nonsense. it's easy enough to determine relevancy. for example
>>> when Xeno explained steering geometry, one didn't need to be an
>>> Einstein to know that was relevant to your erroneous claim about
>>> centrifugal force straightening wheels.
>>
>> Was it really? How so? :)
>
> because they're both steering related.

How exactly, Felix? Go into some detail and show exactly how you know....

>> Presumably you're not keen to carry out this basic and completely
>> harmless test to see for yourself.
>>
>> How surprising :)
>
> not surprising at all that I'm not interested enough to bother

Apparently not, which is not completely unexpected of you. But you *are*
interested in coast-tailing every comment Clasener makes on the subject
with your little "me too's" even though it would take you ten minutes to
test things for yourself and see exactly who's telling the truth and
who's completely clueless.

Most people would probably look at that and think it's pretty stupid
behaviour, but I think it's contrived and for the specific reason that
you're well aware that the only joy you seem to get from hanging out in
a group where the subject matter is something you "have no interest in"
is to add your little "me too's" to the endless stream of clueless
bullshit coming from your mental mate, and if you do anything to upset
that apple cart you'll be all alone with no one to hold your hand and
will find the going around here to be not much fun at all.

And you can deny this all you like, but to any casual observer it's as
plain as day :)

>> The point of this, which is clearly lost on you, is that it is usually
>> a complete waste of time explaining anything to you because you're
>> usually completely unwilling to be objective and unbiased. You have
>> your moments of brilliance on occasion, and the conversations we had a
>> few days ago where things like engine failures or new car running in
>> processes were discussed are good examples of that, but those
>> "moments" are *extremely* rare indeed and most of the time you seem
>> *far* more content to carry on like a total cock.
>>
>> As you are now.
>>
>
> just flawed opinion born of delusion not fact

As has been mentioned to you a number of times now, you wouldn't know
what a "fact" was id someone printed one out, wrapped it around a brick
and used it to cave your ignorant head in.

Which is just as well, as you have zero interest in *anything* relating
to fact. *All* you're interested in is the chance to shit stir, and the
funny part about that is that as soon as some of that shit bounces back
at you you instantly become a victim and spit the dummy.

It's bizarre, *and* ridiculously funny at the same time :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Friday, 1 December 2023 at 23:46:05 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 1/12/2023 11:27 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> > Xeno wrote:
> >> On 1/12/2023 10:38 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> >>> Xeno wrote:
> >>>> On 1/12/2023 10:17 pm, Noddy wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/12/2023 8:32 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> >>>>>> Noddy wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> You have this fucked up idea in your head that just because
> >>>>>>> someone has commented about themselves in a newsgroup that
> >>>>>>> they're automatically compelled to prove it to be true to all and
> >>>>>>> sundry. I have no idea where you get this bullshit from, but okay.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Presumably you're planning on asking Jerky and Teacher to present
> >>>>>>> their qualifications for all to see some time soon?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> nope, because I take them at their word, and besides both have anyway
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see. So, the next time you strut around here jerking your soft on
> >>>>
> >>>> The only person *strutting* here, Darren, is *you*. Whether you have
> >>>> a soft on or a hard on, I don't really care - but what I do know is
> >>>> you don't have *balls*!
> >>>>
> >>>>> about how you have an unbised, open mind and are capable of
> >>>>> independent thought, I'll just remind you of this hypocritical
> >>>>> bullshit you've posted right here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Err, he has an unbiased mind. The difference - for you - is that
> >>>> Clocky and I had the *balls* to front up with proof of claims *we
> >>>> made*. No bias needed or warranted Darren, Felix has clapped his
> >>>> eyes on the proof.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm a Fucking idiot :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here, I fixed your line above.
> >>>
> >>> you did!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She did indeed!!....<FHG>

> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, and how about some proof of *your claims*. It's well past due!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> can't prove what he doesn't have :)
> >>>
> >> But I'm allowed to ask! ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > of course you are. but note that keefy the stalker never attacks you or
> > anyone else here for doing so except me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thus squeaked miniscule mouse. Boo-Hoo, "Keiths pickin' on me" she whiiiined.

Then in prances (yep) krippy o' google,

> Why doesn't he have a go at the FLCJC for not asking Darren. Oh, that's
> right, they trust Darren and won't ask even though claiming trade
> qualifications whilst not possessing them is fraud, pure and simple.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really?, well I claim to be as qualified as as a mechanic as any of you lot. (especially *you))
As ive said *many* times, no *bits of paper* here!. Don`t *need*them. All they prove is that the bare *minimum* standard has been reached!. One begins *learning* to do the job once out in the world.
However, some *never* progress past the basics, instead they don a dustcoat and *bullshit* their way thru life...Know anyone like that? (BTW, You better call whomever and dob me in as a *fraud* butterball!.)

No comeback?, well, whodathunkit.! :)))

https://i.imgflip.com/uf7wh.jpg

IF THE CAP FITS!.

You
> want to know where the hypocrites are - they're in the FLCJC and Darren
> is the biggest hypocrite of them all.

> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 11:36:19 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
> On 2/12/2023 7:41 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> > Noddy wrote:
>
> >> You seem interested enough to make lots of posts about it, and
> >> especially when the opportunity is there to make your usual smart arse
> >> comments. But when it starts getting technical that's when your
> >> "interest" suddenly and very quickly evaporates.
> >
> > yes, because I'm not interested enough. it aint rocket science.. well,
> > maybe it is for you
> If you're not interested enough, then why bump posts looking for a
> response? Is it a fucking game for you? Is that how you amuse yourself
> when you're bored? Trying to elicit conversation that by your own
> admission you have next to no interest in?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I said the other day, his game is playing *both sides against the middle* in here. Just another of lifes failures waiting around to die!.

>
> Take a moment to explain how activity like that can be seen as anything
> but infantile?
> >>> that's nonsense. it's easy enough to determine relevancy. for example
> >>> when Xeno explained steering geometry, one didn't need to be an
> >>> Einstein to know that was relevant to your erroneous claim about
> >>> centrifugal force straightening wheels.
> >>
> >> Was it really? How so? :)
> >
> > because they're both steering related.
> How exactly, Felix? Go into some detail and show exactly how you know....
> >> Presumably you're not keen to carry out this basic and completely
> >> harmless test to see for yourself.
> >>
> >> How surprising :)
> >
> > not surprising at all that I'm not interested enough to bother
> Apparently not, which is not completely unexpected of you. But you *are*
> interested in coast-tailing every comment Clasener makes on the subject
> with your little "me too's" even though it would take you ten minutes to
> test things for yourself and see exactly who's telling the truth and
> who's completely clueless.
>
> Most people would probably look at that and think it's pretty stupid
> behaviour, but I think it's contrived and for the specific reason that
> you're well aware that the only joy you seem to get from hanging out in
> a group where the subject matter is something you "have no interest in"
> is to add your little "me too's" to the endless stream of clueless
> bullshit coming from your mental mate, and if you do anything to upset
> that apple cart you'll be all alone with no one to hold your hand and
> will find the going around here to be not much fun at all.
>
> And you can deny this all you like, but to any casual observer it's as
> plain as day :)
> >> The point of this, which is clearly lost on you, is that it is usually
> >> a complete waste of time explaining anything to you because you're
> >> usually completely unwilling to be objective and unbiased. You have
> >> your moments of brilliance on occasion, and the conversations we had a
> >> few days ago where things like engine failures or new car running in
> >> processes were discussed are good examples of that, but those
> >> "moments" are *extremely* rare indeed and most of the time you seem
> >> *far* more content to carry on like a total cock.
> >>
> >> As you are now.
> >>
> >
> > just flawed opinion born of delusion not fact
> As has been mentioned to you a number of times now, you wouldn't know
> what a "fact" was id someone printed one out, wrapped it around a brick
> and used it to cave your ignorant head in.
>
> Which is just as well, as you have zero interest in *anything* relating
> to fact. *All* you're interested in is the chance to shit stir, and the
> funny part about that is that as soon as some of that shit bounces back
> at you you instantly become a victim and spit the dummy.
>
> It's bizarre, *and* ridiculously funny at the same time :)
> --
> --
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.

jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Friday, 1 December 2023 at 23:46:05 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>> On 1/12/2023 11:27 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/2023 10:38 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 10:17 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 8:32 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You have this fucked up idea in your head that just because
>>>>>>>>> someone has commented about themselves in a newsgroup that
>>>>>>>>> they're automatically compelled to prove it to be true to all and
>>>>>>>>> sundry. I have no idea where you get this bullshit from, but okay.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Presumably you're planning on asking Jerky and Teacher to present
>>>>>>>>> their qualifications for all to see some time soon?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nope, because I take them at their word, and besides both have anyway
>>>>>>> I see. So, the next time you strut around here jerking your soft on
>>>>>> The only person *strutting* here, Darren, is *you*. Whether you have
>>>>>> a soft on or a hard on, I don't really care - but what I do know is
>>>>>> you don't have *balls*!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> about how you have an unbised, open mind and are capable of
>>>>>>> independent thought, I'll just remind you of this hypocritical
>>>>>>> bullshit you've posted right here.
>>>>>> Err, he has an unbiased mind. The difference - for you - is that
>>>>>> Clocky and I had the *balls* to front up with proof of claims *we
>>>>>> made*. No bias needed or warranted Darren, Felix has clapped his
>>>>>> eyes on the proof.
>>>>>>> I'm a Fucking idiot :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here, I fixed your line above.
>>>>> you did!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> She did indeed!!....<FHG>
>
>
>
>>>>>> Oh, and how about some proof of *your claims*. It's well past due!
>>>>>>
>>>>> can't prove what he doesn't have :)
>>>>>
>>>> But I'm allowed to ask! ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> of course you are. but note that keefy the stalker never attacks you or
>>> anyone else here for doing so except me.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Thus squeaked miniscule mouse. Boo-Hoo, "Keiths pickin' on me" she whiiiined.
>
> Then in prances (yep) krippy o' google,
>
>> Why doesn't he have a go at the FLCJC for not asking Darren. Oh, that's
>> right, they trust Darren and won't ask even though claiming trade
>> qualifications whilst not possessing them is fraud, pure and simple.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Really?, well I claim to be as qualified as as a mechanic as any of you lot. (especially *you))

well the simple fact of the matter is.. if you haven't qualified, you're
not qualified, no matter what you claim or think. HTH

> As ive said *many* times, no *bits of paper* here!. Don`t *need* them. All they prove is that the bare *minimum* standard has been reached!. One begins *learning* to do the job once out in the world.

forgive me if I'm wrong, i humbly beg your worship, but isn't a four
year apprenticeship being 'out in the world'? doesn't an apprenticeship
involve significant on the job training? egads! I do believe it does!

> However, some *never* progress past the basics, instead they don a dustcoat and *bullshit* their way thru life...Know anyone like that? (BTW, You better call whomever and dob me in as a *fraud* butterball!.)
>
> No comeback?, well, whodathunkit.! :)))
>
> https://i.imgflip.com/uf7wh.jpg
>
> IF THE CAP FITS!.
>
>
>> You
>> want to know where the hypocrites are - they're in the FLCJC and Darren
>> is the biggest hypocrite of them all.

--
Have a nice day!..

On 1/12/2023 10:29 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 1/12/2023 11:12 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2023 7:55 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 1/12/2023 10:42 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/12/2023 12:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But you're not going to show them are you, so you expect us to
>>>>>>>>>> believe you sight unseen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> who is us? I don't care if you believe me or not. those who
>>>>>>>>> know and/or trust me will.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Init funny how when you apply that logic to *yourself* you see
>>>>>>>> it as being completely rational and don't understand why anyone
>>>>>>>> else would think otherwise, but if I do exactly the same thing
>>>>>>>> it's a crime that needs to be investigated by Interpol :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I understand felix, he is willing to show his proof to people
>>>>>>> he trusts. This of course rules out you and the Enablers. Is that
>>>>>>> correct felix?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no, I'm just saying those who trust me will take me at my word.
>>>>>> but that is not to say it can't be proven if I wished to do so.
>>>>>> and of course as you say, Noddy and his gang wouldn't qualify as
>>>>>> worthy recipients.
>>>>>
>>>>> Total cop-out, you are making a complete hypocrite of yourself. If
>>>>> you aren't prepared to do it yourself, don't expect other to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you're just too stupid to understand, even when it's been explained
>>>> to you in great detail. but when I claim to be a qualified mechanic
>>>> with three apprenticeships under my belt and post with authority on
>>>> automotive matters I promise I will post evidence of them.
>>>>
>>> You have explicitly stated that you ran a successful business for 30
>>> years, but you refuse to provide any information at all about it. Yet
>>> you demand that others provide proof of what they say that they did.
>>> That's hypocrisy.
>>
>> I don't think it is. His business wasn't in automotive so irrelevant
>> (that word again) to discussions here.

Relevant to what? This NG may be called aus.cars, but that's rarely the
subject of posts here, so your claims are just as relevant as any
others. Your just trying to wheedle your way out.

> of course it's not. and nor have I made any claims about it. keefy the
> stalker is just obsessed with me

Obsessed? Good God, you really have tickets on yourself. As for
stalking, look at your mates, alvey posing as a chinese woman to to
infiltrate a facebook group that nodz is a member of. Of course she was
so bad at it that she got caught. Then there is xeno who made several
special trips to the records in order to get the dirt on noddy. Not to
mention some-one who drove up to Merimau but didn't have the guts to
call in.

If you want stalkers, look to your own house.

>> On the other hand, my qualifications and work experience *are*
>> relevant to what is discussed here because it is pretty much all
>> automotive with a smattering of IT.
>>
>
>

On 2/12/2023 8:31 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Mighty Mouse wrote:

>>> No, for the simple reason of the comment you mentioned above. Because
>>> you take what I say "with a mountain size grain of salt"
>
> and why wouldn't I, or any sensible person, when you have proven history
> of lying and getting things wrong

ROTFL :) Have I?

Tell me Felix. How much faith do you put in a bloke who reckons I
deleted posts, despite it being physically impossible for me to have
done so?

What about someone who quite ridiculously claims that the alter ego he
used to post here is actually a real person who despite making *many*
posts in this group on a daily basis suddenly and quite mysteriously
vanished never to be seen or heard from again just as this guy's current
persona emerged, but he still maintains to this very day that they are
separate individuals?

How about someone who claims that I failed 3rd form despite me never
having made that claim, and using that ridiculous lie to claim that it
prevented me from ever being an apprentice?

What about a mental case who was *so* badly triggered that he went all
the way to a Government records building in a different state looking to
dig dirt, and despite his claims that that he found no record of me
whatsoever and took photos to prove it he has not presented those photos
as proof on a *single* occasion?

How about a guy who has such a *severe* inferiority complex and is *so*
desperate to be seen as being "right" that he invented 4 or 5 different
reasons as to why Les's engine failed, and each time he did he got more
and more ridiculous in pointing to nonsensical causes that had nothing
whatsoever to do with me?

What about a bloke who when I put up a pic of an *obviously* damaged
engine last week for him to sink his diagnostic teeth into he couldn't
even pick something as ridiculously obvious that a piston had turned 90
degrees in it's bore and instead claimed that he "didn't even look at
it" which would be the first time in his entire miserable existence in
this group that he has never read a post of mine and commented at least
17 times (aside from the one time he claimed that he read and never
commented on the post he claims I later went back and deleted :)

What about a bloke who sees himself as "extremely trade relevant" (his
term) yet he last worked on a car for a living over 40 years ago? A
bloke who claims he was a "Trade Teacher" yet his understanding of
things like basic brake systems is so appallingly bad he profoundly
embarrassed himself to the point where even Jerky Birko had to pull him
up and tell him "That's not how they work".

And finally, one of my favourites, what about a bloke who claims a
carburettor bigger than the theoretical maximum size that an engine's
cubic capacity calls for is a practical impossibility that simply cannot
work, and completely avoided the half dozen or so real world examples I
gave him of engines with carburettors 2, 3 or more 3 times larger than
the theoretical limit not only working, but being so successful that
they were game changes in their particular classes?

What about all that, Felix? You want to talk about people who lie and
get things wrong? Well, these are all *real* examples of the lies and
incorrect nonsensical ramblings of the *biggest* delusional fuckwit that
this group has *ever* known. A bloke who speaks *so* much shit that
people here took it upon themselves to investigate it. A bloke who was
*so* despised that he was chased out of other newsgroups to the point of
some random person following him in here to reveal his name and address.

And this stuff mentioned here is just the tip of the iceberg, but what
do we hear from you about the lies and being wrong?

*nothing*. Not a fucking thing. Which makes a complete mockery of any
moral high horse you choose to ridiculously place yourself on :)

So tell me Felix. In light of this, why do you think anyone should ever
see you as unbiased and objective when it would appear to me that you
willingly do everything within your power to show yourself as being the
exact opposite.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 2/12/2023 1:05 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 1/12/2023 11:19 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>>> I do do things out in the open not secretly somewhere in the
>>>> background like the team does.
>>>>
>>>> Your address is known.
>>>
>>> so you're a stalker then
>>
>> ROTFL :)
>>
>> From the bloke who was *so* interested to see where I lived that he
>> had to email his mate on the quiet to get the address
>
> another lie. I never did any such thing. your address was posted here.
> it's also a matter of public record from your business registrations.
>
>> and come do a drive by :)
>
> another lie. I never 'drove by' your property and that was proven during
> a previous discussion. I was in Bacchus Marsh and simply drove around to
> see what it was like.
>
>>
>> Hahahahahahahah :)
>>
>> You couldn't write shit this funny if you *wanted* to :)
>>
>>
>
>

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy wrote:
> On 2/12/2023 7:41 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>> You seem interested enough to make lots of posts about it, and
>>> especially when the opportunity is there to make your usual smart
>>> arse comments. But when it starts getting technical that's when your
>>> "interest" suddenly and very quickly evaporates.
>>
>> yes, because I'm not interested enough. it aint rocket science..
>> well, maybe it is for you
>
> If you're not interested enough, then why bump posts looking for a
> response?

I bump posts in discussions I'm involved or interested in, but that
doesn't mean there's no limit to my interest. "we" know you have a
simple mind, so it's a mystery why simple explanations defy your
comprehension.

oh btw, Xeno has asked me not to bother bumping his posts and I will
comply with his request, so in future you will only see (from me) those
I reply to, unless for some personal reason I especially want to bump
some particular post.

> Is it a fucking game for you? Is that how you amuse yourself when
> you're bored? Trying to elicit conversation that by your own admission
> you have next to no interest in?
>
> Take a moment to explain how activity like that can be seen as
> anything but infantile?
>
>>>> that's nonsense. it's easy enough to determine relevancy. for
>>>> example when Xeno explained steering geometry, one didn't need to
>>>> be an Einstein to know that was relevant to your erroneous claim
>>>> about centrifugal force straightening wheels.
>>>
>>> Was it really? How so? :)
>>
>> because they're both steering related.
>
> How exactly, Felix? Go into some detail and show exactly how you know....

umm... because they both have to do with wheels that seer the car? jeez!

>
>>> Presumably you're not keen to carry out this basic and completely
>>> harmless test to see for yourself.
>>>
>>> How surprising :)
>>
>> not surprising at all that I'm not interested enough to bother
>
> Apparently not, which is not completely unexpected of you. But you
> *are* interested in coast-tailing every comment Clasener makes on the
> subject with your little "me too's" even though it would take you ten
> minutes to test things for yourself and see exactly who's telling the
> truth and who's completely clueless.
>
> Most people would probably look at that and think it's pretty stupid
> behaviour, but I think it's contrived and for the specific reason that
> you're well aware that the only joy you seem to get from hanging out
> in a group where the subject matter is something you "have no interest
> in" is to add your little "me too's" to the endless stream of clueless
> bullshit coming from your mental mate, and if you do anything to upset
> that apple cart you'll be all alone with no one to hold your hand and
> will find the going around here to be not much fun at all.
>
> And you can deny this all you like, but to any casual observer it's as
> plain as day :)
>
>>> The point of this, which is clearly lost on you, is that it is
>>> usually a complete waste of time explaining anything to you because
>>> you're usually completely unwilling to be objective and unbiased.
>>> You have your moments of brilliance on occasion, and the
>>> conversations we had a few days ago where things like engine
>>> failures or new car running in processes were discussed are good
>>> examples of that, but those "moments" are *extremely* rare indeed
>>> and most of the time you seem *far* more content to carry on like a
>>> total cock.
>>>
>>> As you are now.
>>>
>>
>> just flawed opinion born of delusion not fact
>
> As has been mentioned to you a number of times now, you wouldn't know
> what a "fact" was if someone printed one out, wrapped it around a
> brick and used it to cave your ignorant head in.

only mentioned by you, but as 'we' all know, your opinion is about as
valuable as some chewed bubble gum left on a bedpost for 60 years.

>
> Which is just as well, as you have zero interest in *anything*
> relating to fact.

feel free to prove it anytime soon. and see previous comment

> *All* you're interested in is the chance to shit stir, and the funny
> part about that is that as soon as some of that shit bounces back at
> you you instantly become a victim and spit the dummy.

see previous comment

>
> It's bizarre, *and* ridiculously funny at the same time :)
>

--
Have a nice day!..