alvey wrote:
> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix? You
>>>>>> having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay myself
>>>>>> bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars in a car
>>>>>> group, while other people who do the same thing have no such
>>>>>> obligation at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation to
>>>> do so but not anyone else.
>>>
>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>
>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>
>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>> b) You are repulsive
>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume and
>>> magnitude of your efforts
>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when proven
>>> to be.
>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>
>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and the
>> veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts have been
>> raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he has, that he
>> actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example of the adage
>> 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for example, of
>> someone claiming to be a black belt in an online discussion martial
>> arts forum being asked to show that they really do hold a black belt,
>> or any other similar example one could mention. and then there's the
>> fact that someone trading while claiming specific training and
>> qualifications for the work they're doing is behaving fraudulently if
>> they don't have the training and qualifications they claim to have.
>> but this has been explained here sooo many times that for him to say
>> it's unclear why he has any obligation to comply with what he's been
>> asked for is a nonsense.
>
> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo, *any*
> claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be false is,
> in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.

not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and I'm
not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's when it
becomes fraud.

>
> And 'yes', his 'arguments', to use the word *extremely* loosely, as to
> why he should be exempt from proving his claims are positively
> Trumpian in their bizarre and irrational fatuity. Like this fabulous
> piece of bluff nonsense!
>
> Fraudster:  That you asked about my business is perfectly rational,
> but that's where your rationality ended. That you demanded to see
> proof of the existence of said business is where your narcissism took
> over from your curiosity as not only are you wrong to expect me to
> have to give you an answer, but you steadfastly refuse to accept the
> answer I *have* given you, which was "go fuck yourself".
>
> I've made it *abundantly* clear that I'm not interested in proving
> anything to you, and to any normal minded person that would be the end
> of it. There's nowhere to go from there and the matter is done. There's
> no proof one way or the other and the casual observer is free to make up
> their own mind as they see fit." Jul0819
>
> He's his own worst enemy. Reality coming in a close second...
>
>
> alvey
>
>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

Xeno wrote:
> On 3/12/2023 5:48 pm, alvey wrote:
>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix?
>>>>>>> You having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay
>>>>>>> myself bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars
>>>>>>> in a car group, while other people who do the same thing have no
>>>>>>> such obligation at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation to
>>>>> do so but not anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>
>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>
>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume and
>>>> magnitude of your efforts
>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when
>>>> proven to be.
>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>
>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and the
>>> veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts have
>>> been raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he has,
>>> that he actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example of the
>>> adage 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for example,
>>> of someone claiming to be a black belt in an online discussion
>>> martial arts forum being asked to show that they really do hold a
>>> black belt, or any other similar example one could mention. and then
>>> there's the fact that someone trading while claiming specific
>>> training and qualifications for the work they're doing is behaving
>>> fraudulently if they don't have the training and qualifications they
>>> claim to have. but this has been explained here sooo many times that
>>> for him to say it's unclear why he has any obligation to comply with
>>> what he's been asked for is a nonsense.
>>
>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo,
>> *any* claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be
>> false is, in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>>
>> And 'yes', his 'arguments', to use the word *extremely* loosely, as
>> to why he should be exempt from proving his claims are positively
>> Trumpian in their bizarre and irrational fatuity. Like this fabulous
>> piece of bluff nonsense!
>
> I'm not sure it'd be right to use the term "Trumpian" for Darren. You
> see, Trump might be crazy but he did manage to finish high school. Not
> only that, he graduated from Uni. Darren, on the other hand, didn't
> even graduate from year 9 - so ... crazy and stupid.

is there any proof he didn't?

>>
>> Fraudster:  That you asked about my business is perfectly rational,
>> but that's where your rationality ended. That you demanded to see
>> proof of
>
> Darren using the term "rationality" is certainly a cause for mirth!
>
>> the existence of said business is where your narcissism took over from
>
> Darren using the phrase "your narcissism" is *pure projection* in its
> finest form!
>
>> your curiosity as not only are you wrong to expect me to have to give
>> you an answer, but you steadfastly refuse to accept the answer I
>> *have* given you, which was "go fuck yourself".
>>
>> I've made it *abundantly* clear that I'm not interested in proving
>> anything to you, and to any normal minded person that would be the end
>
> He says "not interested in" when what he really means is "not able to".
>
>> of it. There's nowhere to go from there and the matter is done. There's
>
> Darren is the only one who has "nowhere to go from there" but the
> matter most certainly *is not done* and Darren needs to go
> *somewhere*. To hell, that would be a good start, anywhere but here a
> *close second*.
>
>> no proof one way or the other and the casual observer is free to make up
>> their own mind as they see fit." Jul0819
>
> There's no proof one way or the other, he got that bit right, he has
> no certificates and I didn't expect to find any proof at PROV except
> that, at PROV, absence of evidence is, in itself, proof that he lied
> about apprenticeships and trade qualifications.
>>
>> He's his own worst enemy. Reality coming in a close second...
>>
> For sure, watch the little man squirm! He makes worms look like
> they're into late stage rigor mortis.
>
>>
>> alvey
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 3/12/2023 7:54 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> alvey wrote:
>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix? You
>>>>>>> having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay myself
>>>>>>> bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars in a car
>>>>>>> group, while other people who do the same thing have no such
>>>>>>> obligation at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation to
>>>>> do so but not anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>
>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>
>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume and
>>>> magnitude of your efforts
>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when proven
>>>> to be.
>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>
>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and the
>>> veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts have been
>>> raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he has, that he
>>> actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example of the adage
>>> 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for example, of
>>> someone claiming to be a black belt in an online discussion martial
>>> arts forum being asked to show that they really do hold a black belt,
>>> or any other similar example one could mention. and then there's the
>>> fact that someone trading while claiming specific training and
>>> qualifications for the work they're doing is behaving fraudulently if
>>> they don't have the training and qualifications they claim to have.
>>> but this has been explained here sooo many times that for him to say
>>> it's unclear why he has any obligation to comply with what he's been
>>> asked for is a nonsense.
>>
>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo, *any*
>> claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be false is,
>> in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>
> not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and I'm
> not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's when it
> becomes fraud.
>
Slight correction, the *intention to defraud* makes it a crime. For
example, having the lie on your resume and then *applying* to work as a
doctor or lawyer on the basis of that lie makes it a crime.
>>
>> And 'yes', his 'arguments', to use the word *extremely* loosely, as to
>> why he should be exempt from proving his claims are positively
>> Trumpian in their bizarre and irrational fatuity. Like this fabulous
>> piece of bluff nonsense!
>>
>> Fraudster:  That you asked about my business is perfectly rational,
>> but that's where your rationality ended. That you demanded to see
>> proof of the existence of said business is where your narcissism took
>> over from your curiosity as not only are you wrong to expect me to
>> have to give you an answer, but you steadfastly refuse to accept the
>> answer I *have* given you, which was "go fuck yourself".
>>
>> I've made it *abundantly* clear that I'm not interested in proving
>> anything to you, and to any normal minded person that would be the end
>> of it. There's nowhere to go from there and the matter is done. There's
>> no proof one way or the other and the casual observer is free to make up
>> their own mind as they see fit." Jul0819
>>
>> He's his own worst enemy. Reality coming in a close second...
>>
>>
>> alvey
>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Xeno

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

On 3/12/2023 7:57 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 3/12/2023 5:48 pm, alvey wrote:
>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix?
>>>>>>>> You having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay
>>>>>>>> myself bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars
>>>>>>>> in a car group, while other people who do the same thing have no
>>>>>>>> such obligation at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation to
>>>>>> do so but not anyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>>
>>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume and
>>>>> magnitude of your efforts
>>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when
>>>>> proven to be.
>>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>>
>>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>>>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and the
>>>> veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts have
>>>> been raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he has,
>>>> that he actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example of the
>>>> adage 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for example,
>>>> of someone claiming to be a black belt in an online discussion
>>>> martial arts forum being asked to show that they really do hold a
>>>> black belt, or any other similar example one could mention. and then
>>>> there's the fact that someone trading while claiming specific
>>>> training and qualifications for the work they're doing is behaving
>>>> fraudulently if they don't have the training and qualifications they
>>>> claim to have. but this has been explained here sooo many times that
>>>> for him to say it's unclear why he has any obligation to comply with
>>>> what he's been asked for is a nonsense.
>>>
>>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo,
>>> *any* claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be
>>> false is, in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>>>
>>> And 'yes', his 'arguments', to use the word *extremely* loosely, as
>>> to why he should be exempt from proving his claims are positively
>>> Trumpian in their bizarre and irrational fatuity. Like this fabulous
>>> piece of bluff nonsense!
>>
>> I'm not sure it'd be right to use the term "Trumpian" for Darren. You
>> see, Trump might be crazy but he did manage to finish high school. Not
>> only that, he graduated from Uni. Darren, on the other hand, didn't
>> even graduate from year 9 - so ... crazy and stupid.
>
> is there any proof he didn't?
>
Yeah, his own words! Once he realised he slipped up, he tried to do a
backpedal but it didn't work.
>>>
>>> Fraudster:  That you asked about my business is perfectly rational,
>>> but that's where your rationality ended. That you demanded to see
>>> proof of
>>
>> Darren using the term "rationality" is certainly a cause for mirth!
>>
>>> the existence of said business is where your narcissism took over from
>>
>> Darren using the phrase "your narcissism" is *pure projection* in its
>> finest form!
>>
>>> your curiosity as not only are you wrong to expect me to have to give
>>> you an answer, but you steadfastly refuse to accept the answer I
>>> *have* given you, which was "go fuck yourself".
>>>
>>> I've made it *abundantly* clear that I'm not interested in proving
>>> anything to you, and to any normal minded person that would be the end
>>
>> He says "not interested in" when what he really means is "not able to".
>>
>>> of it. There's nowhere to go from there and the matter is done. There's
>>
>> Darren is the only one who has "nowhere to go from there" but the
>> matter most certainly *is not done* and Darren needs to go
>> *somewhere*. To hell, that would be a good start, anywhere but here a
>> *close second*.
>>
>>> no proof one way or the other and the casual observer is free to make up
>>> their own mind as they see fit." Jul0819
>>
>> There's no proof one way or the other, he got that bit right, he has
>> no certificates and I didn't expect to find any proof at PROV except
>> that, at PROV, absence of evidence is, in itself, proof that he lied
>> about apprenticeships and trade qualifications.
>>>
>>> He's his own worst enemy. Reality coming in a close second...
>>>
>> For sure, watch the little man squirm! He makes worms look like
>> they're into late stage rigor mortis.
>>
>>>
>>> alvey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--
Xeno

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

On 3/12/2023 4:54 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> alvey wrote:
>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix? You
>>>>>>> having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay myself
>>>>>>> bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars in a car
>>>>>>> group, while other people who do the same thing have no such
>>>>>>> obligation at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation to
>>>>> do so but not anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>
>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>
>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume and
>>>> magnitude of your efforts
>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when proven
>>>> to be.
>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>
>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and the
>>> veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts have been
>>> raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he has, that he
>>> actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example of the adage
>>> 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for example, of
>>> someone claiming to be a black belt in an online discussion martial
>>> arts forum being asked to show that they really do hold a black belt,
>>> or any other similar example one could mention. and then there's the
>>> fact that someone trading while claiming specific training and
>>> qualifications for the work they're doing is behaving fraudulently if
>>> they don't have the training and qualifications they claim to have.
>>> but this has been explained here sooo many times that for him to say
>>> it's unclear why he has any obligation to comply with what he's been
>>> asked for is a nonsense.
>>
>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo, *any*
>> claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be false is,
>> in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>
> not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and I'm
> not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's when it
> becomes fraud.
>

If you give specific advice under the pretense of being a doctor is also
a crime.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-convicted-after-pretending-to-be-a-doctor-on-tiktok-instagram-20231011-p5ebhv.html

>>
>> And 'yes', his 'arguments', to use the word *extremely* loosely, as to
>> why he should be exempt from proving his claims are positively
>> Trumpian in their bizarre and irrational fatuity. Like this fabulous
>> piece of bluff nonsense!
>>
>> Fraudster:  That you asked about my business is perfectly rational,
>> but that's where your rationality ended. That you demanded to see
>> proof of the existence of said business is where your narcissism took
>> over from your curiosity as not only are you wrong to expect me to
>> have to give you an answer, but you steadfastly refuse to accept the
>> answer I *have* given you, which was "go fuck yourself".
>>
>> I've made it *abundantly* clear that I'm not interested in proving
>> anything to you, and to any normal minded person that would be the end
>> of it. There's nowhere to go from there and the matter is done. There's
>> no proof one way or the other and the casual observer is free to make up
>> their own mind as they see fit." Jul0819
>>
>> He's his own worst enemy. Reality coming in a close second...
>>
>>
>> alvey
>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 30/11/2023 6:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 7:17 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2023 1:41 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> how is commenting on a post 'taking over the conversation'?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously? :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes. so next time you post something I could say the same about you?
>>>
>>> Feel free :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> stop taking over this conversation!
>
> Sure thing. I'll just go back to ignoring you.
>
>

Another lie!

So how did you grow three inches over the years?

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 3/12/2023 8:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 3/12/2023 4:54 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> alvey wrote:
>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix?
>>>>>>>> You having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay
>>>>>>>> myself bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars
>>>>>>>> in a car group, while other people who do the same thing have no
>>>>>>>> such obligation at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation to
>>>>>> do so but not anyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>>
>>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume and
>>>>> magnitude of your efforts
>>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when
>>>>> proven to be.
>>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>>
>>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>>>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and the
>>>> veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts have
>>>> been raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he has,
>>>> that he actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example of the
>>>> adage 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for example,
>>>> of someone claiming to be a black belt in an online discussion
>>>> martial arts forum being asked to show that they really do hold a
>>>> black belt, or any other similar example one could mention. and then
>>>> there's the fact that someone trading while claiming specific
>>>> training and qualifications for the work they're doing is behaving
>>>> fraudulently if they don't have the training and qualifications they
>>>> claim to have. but this has been explained here sooo many times that
>>>> for him to say it's unclear why he has any obligation to comply with
>>>> what he's been asked for is a nonsense.
>>>
>>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo,
>>> *any* claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be
>>> false is, in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>>
>> not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and I'm
>> not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's when
>> it becomes fraud.
>>
>
> If you give specific advice under the pretense of being a doctor is also
> a crime.
> https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-convicted-after-pretending-to-be-a-doctor-on-tiktok-instagram-20231011-p5ebhv.html

Ah, yes, forgot about that one. Very recent news.
>
>>>
>>> And 'yes', his 'arguments', to use the word *extremely* loosely, as
>>> to why he should be exempt from proving his claims are positively
>>> Trumpian in their bizarre and irrational fatuity. Like this fabulous
>>> piece of bluff nonsense!
>>>
>>> Fraudster:  That you asked about my business is perfectly rational,
>>> but that's where your rationality ended. That you demanded to see
>>> proof of the existence of said business is where your narcissism took
>>> over from your curiosity as not only are you wrong to expect me to
>>> have to give you an answer, but you steadfastly refuse to accept the
>>> answer I *have* given you, which was "go fuck yourself".
>>>
>>> I've made it *abundantly* clear that I'm not interested in proving
>>> anything to you, and to any normal minded person that would be the end
>>> of it. There's nowhere to go from there and the matter is done. There's
>>> no proof one way or the other and the casual observer is free to make up
>>> their own mind as they see fit." Jul0819
>>>
>>> He's his own worst enemy. Reality coming in a close second...
>>>
>>>
>>> alvey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Xeno

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

On 3/12/2023 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 3/12/2023 4:54 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> alvey wrote:
>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix?
>>>>>>>> You having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay
>>>>>>>> myself bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars
>>>>>>>> in a car group, while other people who do the same thing have no
>>>>>>>> such obligation at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation to
>>>>>> do so but not anyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>>
>>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume and
>>>>> magnitude of your efforts
>>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when
>>>>> proven to be.
>>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>>
>>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>>>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and the
>>>> veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts have
>>>> been raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he has,
>>>> that he actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example of the
>>>> adage 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for example,
>>>> of someone claiming to be a black belt in an online discussion
>>>> martial arts forum being asked to show that they really do hold a
>>>> black belt, or any other similar example one could mention. and then
>>>> there's the fact that someone trading while claiming specific
>>>> training and qualifications for the work they're doing is behaving
>>>> fraudulently if they don't have the training and qualifications they
>>>> claim to have. but this has been explained here sooo many times that
>>>> for him to say it's unclear why he has any obligation to comply with
>>>> what he's been asked for is a nonsense.
>>>
>>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo,
>>> *any* claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be
>>> false is, in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>>
>> not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and I'm
>> not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's when
>> it becomes fraud.
>>
>
> If you give specific advice under the pretense of being a doctor is also
> a crime.
> https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-convicted-after-pretending-to-be-a-doctor-on-tiktok-instagram-20231011-p5ebhv.html

And that is relevant to what? AFAIK nobody here is claiming to be a doctor.

On 3/12/2023 10:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 3/12/2023 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 3/12/2023 4:54 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> alvey wrote:
>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix?
>>>>>>>>> You having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay
>>>>>>>>> myself bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars
>>>>>>>>> in a car group, while other people who do the same thing have
>>>>>>>>> no such obligation at all?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation
>>>>>>> to do so but not anyone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume
>>>>>> and magnitude of your efforts
>>>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when
>>>>>> proven to be.
>>>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>>>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>>>>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and
>>>>> the veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts
>>>>> have been raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he
>>>>> has, that he actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example
>>>>> of the adage 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for
>>>>> example, of someone claiming to be a black belt in an online
>>>>> discussion martial arts forum being asked to show that they really
>>>>> do hold a black belt, or any other similar example one could
>>>>> mention. and then there's the fact that someone trading while
>>>>> claiming specific training and qualifications for the work they're
>>>>> doing is behaving fraudulently if they don't have the training and
>>>>> qualifications they claim to have. but this has been explained here
>>>>> sooo many times that for him to say it's unclear why he has any
>>>>> obligation to comply with what he's been asked for is a nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>>>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo,
>>>> *any* claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be
>>>> false is, in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>>>
>>> not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and I'm
>>> not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's when
>>> it becomes fraud.
>>>
>>
>> If you give specific advice under the pretense of being a doctor is
>> also a crime.
>> https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-convicted-after-pretending-to-be-a-doctor-on-tiktok-instagram-20231011-p5ebhv.html
>
> And that is relevant to what? AFAIK nobody here is claiming to be a doctor.
>
Applies to frauds claiming to be a mechanic. Fraud is fraud.
--
Xeno

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

Mighty Mouse wrote:
> alvey wrote:
>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix? You
>>>>>>> having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay myself
>>>>>>> bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars in a car
>>>>>>> group, while other people who do the same thing have no such
>>>>>>> obligation at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation to
>>>>> do so but not anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>
>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>
>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume and
>>>> magnitude of your efforts
>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when proven
>>>> to be.
>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>
>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and the
>>> veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts have been
>>> raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he has, that he
>>> actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example of the adage
>>> 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for example, of
>>> someone claiming to be a black belt in an online discussion martial
>>> arts forum being asked to show that they really do hold a black belt,
>>> or any other similar example one could mention. and then there's the
>>> fact that someone trading while claiming specific training and
>>> qualifications for the work they're doing is behaving fraudulently if
>>> they don't have the training and qualifications they claim to have.
>>> but this has been explained here sooo many times that for him to say
>>> it's unclear why he has any obligation to comply with what he's been
>>> asked for is a nonsense.
>>
>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo, *any*
>> claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be false is,
>> in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>
> not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and I'm
> not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's when it
> becomes fraud.

Yes, but that's *legal* fraud, which is why I prefixed my definition
with "...accepted public vernacular...". As per the Cambridge
dictionary, "someone who deceives people by saying that they are someone
or something that they are not".

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 2/12/2023 1:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> "Don't get too cocky, things are known about you.Your address is
>>>> known"
>>>>
>>>> is a veiled threat that some action will be taken
>>>
>>> Is it? I don't see it as such.
>>
>> you don't see a lot of things normal ppl do..
>
> Let me give you a red hot tip for free here Felix: You ain't "normal" :)
>
>
>

what's not normal is someone who blatantly lies about seeing me drive
past their house, then later thanks me for posting a photo because it
helps to know me better

--
Have a nice day!..

On 3/12/2023 7:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 3/12/2023 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 3/12/2023 4:54 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> alvey wrote:
>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix?
>>>>>>>>> You having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay
>>>>>>>>> myself bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars
>>>>>>>>> in a car group, while other people who do the same thing have
>>>>>>>>> no such obligation at all?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation
>>>>>>> to do so but not anyone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume
>>>>>> and magnitude of your efforts
>>>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when
>>>>>> proven to be.
>>>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>>>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>>>>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and
>>>>> the veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts
>>>>> have been raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he
>>>>> has, that he actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example
>>>>> of the adage 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for
>>>>> example, of someone claiming to be a black belt in an online
>>>>> discussion martial arts forum being asked to show that they really
>>>>> do hold a black belt, or any other similar example one could
>>>>> mention. and then there's the fact that someone trading while
>>>>> claiming specific training and qualifications for the work they're
>>>>> doing is behaving fraudulently if they don't have the training and
>>>>> qualifications they claim to have. but this has been explained here
>>>>> sooo many times that for him to say it's unclear why he has any
>>>>> obligation to comply with what he's been asked for is a nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>>>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo,
>>>> *any* claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be
>>>> false is, in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>>>
>>> not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and I'm
>>> not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's when
>>> it becomes fraud.
>>>
>>
>> If you give specific advice under the pretense of being a doctor is
>> also a crime.
>> https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-convicted-after-pretending-to-be-a-doctor-on-tiktok-instagram-20231011-p5ebhv.html
>>
>
> And that is relevant to what? AFAIK nobody here is claiming to be a doctor.
>

Doesn't matter, fraud is fraud in the eyes of the law.
Even in backward Victoria where you can work on cars without
qualifications you can't call yourself a qualified mechanic when you are
not.

And people have every right to question claims of qualifications when
there is no evidence to substantiate the claim, no evidence provided on
request and there is evidence that suggests the claim is false.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 4/12/2023 11:03 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 2/12/2023 1:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Don't get too cocky, things are known about you.Your address is
>>>>> known"
>>>>>
>>>>> is a veiled threat that some action will be taken
>>>>
>>>> Is it? I don't see it as such.
>>>
>>> you don't see a lot of things normal ppl do..
>>
>> Let me give you a red hot tip for free here Felix: You ain't "normal" :)
>>
>>
>>
>
> what's not normal is someone who blatantly lies about seeing me drive
> past their house, then later thanks me for posting a photo because it
> helps to know me better
>
What is not normal is people making wildly exaggerated claims about
their capabilities. Like 3 apprenticeships for instance.

--
Xeno

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

Clocky wrote:
> On 3/12/2023 7:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 3/12/2023 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2023 4:54 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix?
>>>>>>>>>> You having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay
>>>>>>>>>> myself bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk
>>>>>>>>>> cars in a car group, while other people who do the same thing
>>>>>>>>>> have no such obligation at all?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation
>>>>>>>> to do so but not anyone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume
>>>>>>> and magnitude of your efforts
>>>>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when
>>>>>>> proven to be.
>>>>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all
>>>>>>> the time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>>>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence
>>>>>> of that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum,
>>>>>> and the veracity of what he posts here, and especially since
>>>>>> doubts have been raised by those who have the qualifications he
>>>>>> claims he has, that he actually has them. so it's it's a bit like
>>>>>> an example of the adage 'takes one to know one'. and it's no
>>>>>> different, for example, of someone claiming to be a black belt in
>>>>>> an online discussion martial arts forum being asked to show that
>>>>>> they really do hold a black belt, or any other similar example
>>>>>> one could mention. and then there's the fact that someone trading
>>>>>> while claiming specific training and qualifications for the work
>>>>>> they're doing is behaving fraudulently if they don't have the
>>>>>> training and qualifications they claim to have. but this has been
>>>>>> explained here sooo many times that for him to say it's unclear
>>>>>> why he has any obligation to comply with what he's been asked for
>>>>>> is a nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>>>>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo,
>>>>> *any* claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be
>>>>> false is, in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>>>>
>>>> not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and
>>>> I'm not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's
>>>> when it becomes fraud.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you give specific advice under the pretense of being a doctor is
>>> also a crime.
>>> https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-convicted-after-pretending-to-be-a-doctor-on-tiktok-instagram-20231011-p5ebhv.html
>>>
>>
>> And that is relevant to what? AFAIK nobody here is claiming to be a
>> doctor.
>>
>
> Doesn't matter, fraud is fraud in the eyes of the law.
> Even in backward Victoria where you can work on cars without
> qualifications you can't call yourself a qualified mechanic when you
> are not.
>
> And people have every right to question claims of qualifications when
> there is no evidence to substantiate the claim, no evidence provided
> on request and there is evidence that suggests the claim is false.
>
>
>

that was all well said. even keefy should be able to understand it :)

--
Have a nice day!..

Xeno wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 11:03 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2023 1:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> "Don't get too cocky, things are known about you.Your address is
>>>>>> known"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is a veiled threat that some action will be taken
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it? I don't see it as such.
>>>>
>>>> you don't see a lot of things normal ppl do..
>>>
>>> Let me give you a red hot tip for free here Felix: You ain't
>>> "normal" :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> what's not normal is someone who blatantly lies about seeing me drive
>> past their house, then later thanks me for posting a photo because it
>> helps to know me better
>>
> What is not normal is people making wildly exaggerated claims about
> their capabilities. Like 3 apprenticeships for instance.
>
>

normal behavior for dishonest ppl

--
Have a nice day!..

alvey wrote:
> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> alvey wrote:
>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix?
>>>>>>>> You having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay
>>>>>>>> myself bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk cars
>>>>>>>> in a car group, while other people who do the same thing have
>>>>>>>> no such obligation at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation
>>>>>> to do so but not anyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>>
>>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume
>>>>> and magnitude of your efforts
>>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when
>>>>> proven to be.
>>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all the
>>>>> time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>>
>>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence of
>>>> that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum, and
>>>> the veracity of what he posts here, and especially since doubts
>>>> have been raised by those who have the qualifications he claims he
>>>> has, that he actually has them. so it's it's a bit like an example
>>>> of the adage 'takes one to know one'. and it's no different, for
>>>> example, of someone claiming to be a black belt in an online
>>>> discussion martial arts forum being asked to show that they really
>>>> do hold a black belt, or any other similar example one could
>>>> mention. and then there's the fact that someone trading while
>>>> claiming specific training and qualifications for the work they're
>>>> doing is behaving fraudulently if they don't have the training and
>>>> qualifications they claim to have. but this has been explained here
>>>> sooo many times that for him to say it's unclear why he has any
>>>> obligation to comply with what he's been asked for is a nonsense.
>>>
>>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo,
>>> *any* claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be
>>> false is, in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>>
>> not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and I'm
>> not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's when
>> it becomes fraud.
>
> Yes, but that's *legal* fraud, which is why I prefixed my definition
> with "...accepted public vernacular...". As per the Cambridge
> dictionary, "someone who deceives people by saying that they are
> someone or something that they are not".
>
>

OK

and here's what google says..

Definitions from Oxford Languages
fraud

noun
noun: fraud; plural noun: frauds

    wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or
personal gain.
    "he was convicted of fraud"

    Similar:
    fraudulence

    a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by
unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
    "mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"

>
>
> alvey
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 4/12/2023 12:34 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 11:03 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2023 1:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Don't get too cocky, things are known about you.Your address is
>>>>>>> known"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is a veiled threat that some action will be taken
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it? I don't see it as such.
>>>>>
>>>>> you don't see a lot of things normal ppl do..
>>>>
>>>> Let me give you a red hot tip for free here Felix: You ain't
>>>> "normal" :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> what's not normal is someone who blatantly lies about seeing me drive
>>> past their house, then later thanks me for posting a photo because it
>>> helps to know me better
>>>
>> What is not normal is people making wildly exaggerated claims about
>> their capabilities. Like 3 apprenticeships for instance.
>>
>>
>
> normal behavior for dishonest ppl
>
I'd have said *delusional*, especially if they think people are going to
believe them.

--
Xeno

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

Xeno wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 12:34 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2023 11:03 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2023 1:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Don't get too cocky, things are known about you.Your address
>>>>>>>> is known"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is a veiled threat that some action will be taken
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it? I don't see it as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you don't see a lot of things normal ppl do..
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me give you a red hot tip for free here Felix: You ain't
>>>>> "normal" :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what's not normal is someone who blatantly lies about seeing me
>>>> drive past their house, then later thanks me for posting a photo
>>>> because it helps to know me better
>>>>
>>> What is not normal is people making wildly exaggerated claims about
>>> their capabilities. Like 3 apprenticeships for instance.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> normal behavior for dishonest ppl
>>
> I'd have said *delusional*, especially if they think people are going
> to believe them.
>
>

yes. I suppose I should have said typical behaviour

--
Have a nice day!..

Mighty Mouse wrote:
> alvey wrote:

> OK
>
> and here's what google says..
>
> Definitions from Oxford Languages

P. Edant of the Sunshine Coast writes...
So it's actually what "Oxford Languages" says.

> fraud
>
> noun
> noun: fraud; plural noun: frauds
>
>     wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or
> personal gain.
>     "he was convicted of fraud"
>
>     Similar:
>     fraudulence
>
>     a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by
> unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
>     "mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"

I do like "fraudulence". It's redolent of 'flatulence' and would be easy
to limerick/rhyme.

Speaking of dictionaries... I noticed these entries in the latest
edition of Ambrose Bierces' "The Devil's Dictionary"

Palme d'Or - A worthless annual prize awarded by a bunch of freeloading
& pretentious wankers to a pretentious film in one of the worlds most
hedonistic locations.

Palm D'oh - When the Fraudsters' hand slips off his dick whilst having a
wank and smashes into his face. This is much more frequent than the
Palme d'Or.

alvey

On 4/12/2023 1:35 pm, alvey wrote:
> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> alvey wrote:
>
>
>> OK
>>
>> and here's what google says..
>>
>> Definitions from Oxford Languages
>
> P. Edant of the Sunshine Coast writes...
> So it's actually what "Oxford Languages" says.
>
>> fraud
>>
>> noun
>> noun: fraud; plural noun: frauds
>>
>>      wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or
>> personal gain.
>>      "he was convicted of fraud"
>>
>>      Similar:
>>      fraudulence
>>
>>      a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by
>> unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or
>> qualities.
>>      "mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"
>
> I do like "fraudulence". It's redolent of 'flatulence' and would be easy
> to limerick/rhyme.
>
> Speaking of dictionaries... I noticed these entries in the latest
> edition of Ambrose Bierces' "The Devil's Dictionary"
>
> Palme d'Or - A worthless annual prize awarded by a bunch of freeloading
> & pretentious wankers to a pretentious film in one of the worlds most
> hedonistic locations.
>
> Palm D'oh - When the Fraudsters' hand slips off his dick whilst having a
> wank and smashes into his face. This is much more frequent than the
> Palme d'Or.
>
>
> alvey
>
That takes facepalming to a whole new level!
--
Xeno

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

Xeno wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 1:35 pm, alvey wrote:
>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> alvey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> OK
>>>
>>> and here's what google says..
>>>
>>> Definitions from Oxford Languages
>>
>> P. Edant of the Sunshine Coast writes...
>> So it's actually what "Oxford Languages" says.
>>
>>> fraud
>>>
>>> noun
>>> noun: fraud; plural noun: frauds
>>>
>>>      wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial
>>> or personal gain.
>>>      "he was convicted of fraud"
>>>
>>>      Similar:
>>>      fraudulence
>>>
>>>      a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by
>>> unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or
>>> qualities.
>>>      "mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"
>>
>> I do like "fraudulence". It's redolent of 'flatulence' and would be
>> easy to limerick/rhyme.
>>
>> Speaking of dictionaries... I noticed these entries in the latest
>> edition of Ambrose Bierces' "The Devil's Dictionary"
>>
>> Palme d'Or - A worthless annual prize awarded by a bunch of
>> freeloading & pretentious wankers to a pretentious film in one of the
>> worlds most hedonistic locations.
>>
>> Palm D'oh - When the Fraudsters' hand slips off his dick whilst
>> having a wank and smashes into his face. This is much more frequent
>> than the Palme d'Or.
>>
>>
>> alvey
>>
> That takes facepalming to a whole new level!

no noddy posts today. I think he may have binned me again. he didn't
like it when I said anyone would have to be a fool to believe anything
he says. but what can he expect when he tells so many lies, and has a
history of lying going back decades? only last month he was lying about
having a video of my car driving past his house! I think he just likes
playing games with ppl, so no one should take him seriously.

--
Have a nice day!..

On 4/12/2023 12:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Clocky wrote:
>> On 3/12/2023 7:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2023 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2023 4:54 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2023 2:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And what exactly would that legitimate distinction be, Felix?
>>>>>>>>>>> You having some misguided belief that I'm obligated to lay
>>>>>>>>>>> myself bare for all to see because I had the gall to talk
>>>>>>>>>>> cars in a car group, while other people who do the same thing
>>>>>>>>>>> have no such obligation at all?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you've been asked to substantiate your OWN claims. that is all
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that bit is fairly easy for anyone to work out. What's
>>>>>>>>> remarkably *less* clear is why you think I have some obligation
>>>>>>>>> to do so but not anyone else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's only "less clear" to you Fraudster.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've been requested to substantiate some of your claims because;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) You've requested the same of others many times
>>>>>>>> b) You are repulsive
>>>>>>>> c) No one else has made suspect claims anywhere near the volume
>>>>>>>> and magnitude of your efforts
>>>>>>>> d) You have an undeniable history of lying
>>>>>>>> e) You have a 100% record of never admitting being wrong when
>>>>>>>> proven to be.
>>>>>>>> f) Because that's how Western society and Law work. You make the
>>>>>>>> claim, you provide the proof. Why you used to bellow that all
>>>>>>>> the time. Right up to when the spotlight was on you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hth [He said: Drenched in irony]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's really quite simple, he has claimed specific training and
>>>>>>> qualifications, and all he's being asked for is to show evidence
>>>>>>> of that, since it relates directly to the nature of this forum,
>>>>>>> and the veracity of what he posts here, and especially since
>>>>>>> doubts have been raised by those who have the qualifications he
>>>>>>> claims he has, that he actually has them. so it's it's a bit like
>>>>>>> an example of the adage 'takes one to know one'. and it's no
>>>>>>> different, for example, of someone claiming to be a black belt in
>>>>>>> an online discussion martial arts forum being asked to show that
>>>>>>> they really do hold a black belt, or any other similar example
>>>>>>> one could mention. and then there's the fact that someone trading
>>>>>>> while claiming specific training and qualifications for the work
>>>>>>> they're doing is behaving fraudulently if they don't have the
>>>>>>> training and qualifications they claim to have. but this has been
>>>>>>> explained here sooo many times that for him to say it's unclear
>>>>>>> why he has any obligation to comply with what he's been asked for
>>>>>>> is a nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe it's necessary to concentrate on this, "training &
>>>>>> qualifications" aspect for a definitive example of 'fraud'. Imo,
>>>>>> *any* claim made by someone which is subsequently discovered to be
>>>>>> false is, in the accepted public vernacular, 'fraud'.
>>>>>
>>>>> not really. If I say I'm a solicitor or a doctor of medicine, and
>>>>> I'm not, it's just a lie. but if I practice law or medicine, that's
>>>>> when it becomes fraud.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you give specific advice under the pretense of being a doctor is
>>>> also a crime.
>>>> https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-convicted-after-pretending-to-be-a-doctor-on-tiktok-instagram-20231011-p5ebhv.html
>>>
>>> And that is relevant to what? AFAIK nobody here is claiming to be a
>>> doctor.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't matter, fraud is fraud in the eyes of the law.
>> Even in backward Victoria where you can work on cars without
>> qualifications you can't call yourself a qualified mechanic when you
>> are not.
>>
>> And people have every right to question claims of qualifications when
>> there is no evidence to substantiate the claim, no evidence provided
>> on request and there is evidence that suggests the claim is false.
>>
>>
>>
>
> that was all well said. even keefy should be able to understand it :)
>
Except the statement isn't true unless the person asking is a customer
of Noddy's (AFAIK retired mechanics don't have customers anymore) and
if that were the case I'm pretty sure that he would be happy to show them.

--
Daryl

On 4/12/2023 12:34 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 11:03 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2023 1:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Don't get too cocky, things are known about you.Your address is
>>>>>>> known"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is a veiled threat that some action will be taken
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it? I don't see it as such.
>>>>>
>>>>> you don't see a lot of things normal ppl do..
>>>>
>>>> Let me give you a red hot tip for free here Felix: You ain't
>>>> "normal" :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> what's not normal is someone who blatantly lies about seeing me drive
>>> past their house, then later thanks me for posting a photo because it
>>> helps to know me better
>>>
>> What is not normal is people making wildly exaggerated claims about
>> their capabilities. Like 3 apprenticeships for instance.
>>
>>
>
> normal behavior for dishonest ppl
>
You would be an expert on that subject.

--
Daryl

On 4/12/2023 12:08 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 1:35 pm, alvey wrote:
>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> alvey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> OK
>>>>
>>>> and here's what google says..
>>>>
>>>> Definitions from Oxford Languages
>>>
>>> P. Edant of the Sunshine Coast writes...
>>> So it's actually what "Oxford Languages" says.
>>>
>>>> fraud
>>>>
>>>> noun
>>>> noun: fraud; plural noun: frauds
>>>>
>>>>      wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial
>>>> or personal gain.
>>>>      "he was convicted of fraud"
>>>>
>>>>      Similar:
>>>>      fraudulence
>>>>
>>>>      a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by
>>>> unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or
>>>> qualities.
>>>>      "mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"
>>>
>>> I do like "fraudulence". It's redolent of 'flatulence' and would be
>>> easy to limerick/rhyme.
>>>
>>> Speaking of dictionaries... I noticed these entries in the latest
>>> edition of Ambrose Bierces' "The Devil's Dictionary"
>>>
>>> Palme d'Or - A worthless annual prize awarded by a bunch of
>>> freeloading & pretentious wankers to a pretentious film in one of the
>>> worlds most hedonistic locations.
>>>
>>> Palm D'oh - When the Fraudsters' hand slips off his dick whilst
>>> having a wank and smashes into his face. This is much more frequent
>>> than the Palme d'Or.
>>>
>>>
>>> alvey
>>>
>> That takes facepalming to a whole new level!
>
> no noddy posts today. I think he may have binned me again. he didn't
> like it when I said anyone would have to be a fool to believe anything
> he says. but what can he expect when he tells so many lies, and has a
> history of lying going back decades? only last month he was lying about
> having a video of my car driving past his house! I think he just likes
> playing games with ppl, so no one should take him seriously.
>

His congenital lying is just a symptom of bigger issues going on in that
busted arse pig head of his.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

Daryl wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 12:34 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2023 11:03 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2023 1:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Don't get too cocky, things are known about you.Your address
>>>>>>>> is known"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is a veiled threat that some action will be taken
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it? I don't see it as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you don't see a lot of things normal ppl do..
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me give you a red hot tip for free here Felix: You ain't
>>>>> "normal" :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what's not normal is someone who blatantly lies about seeing me
>>>> drive past their house, then later thanks me for posting a photo
>>>> because it helps to know me better
>>>>
>>> What is not normal is people making wildly exaggerated claims about
>>> their capabilities. Like 3 apprenticeships for instance.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> normal behavior for dishonest ppl
>>
> You would be an expert on that subject.
>
>

so you're saying I'm dishonest. please tell me why and give examples.
btw and fyi I'm not dishonest, but maybe you are, since you're mates
with the most dishonest person here.

--
Have a nice day!..