Clocky wrote:
> 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.
>

yes. narcissism and delusion

--
Have a nice day!..

Daryl wrote:
> 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.
>
>

according to what Xeno says, and the checking he's done, it's impossible
for noddy to have the qualifications and training he claims to have

--
Have a nice day!..

On 4/12/2023 3:22 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> according to what Xeno says, and the checking he's done, it's impossible
> for noddy to have the qualifications and training he claims to have
>
"According to what Xeno says" there's your problem right there.

On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.

Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot fraudulently
claim to have one. Since there is no licence requirement, it follows
that there is no qualification required to be a mechanic. The only way
that a lie could be told is if a customer asked what qualification he has.

On 4/12/2023 3:18 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Clocky wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> yes. narcissism and delusion
>
girl chatter

On 2/12/2023 2:41 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 16:22:58 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 11:57:28 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> 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, 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!
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> Really? as if you`d know *what* was involved. I`ve had 59yrs working
>>>> in and around the trade (Including half an apprenticeship!) You
>>>> think that would be enough learning?. But no, I reckon the concept
>>>> of a "life time of learning" would be just another *WHoooooooSH
>>>> moment for you.... However yer girlfriend will prolly appear with
>>>> twelve (12) foolscap (appropriate) pages of bullshit sooner or later..
>>>> Wondering why you have not commented on the above mentioned when it
>>>> has been poasted here previously?.
>>>> Mayhap yer a slow ol' fella.. <G>
>>>> `
>>> what am I supposed to be commenting on?
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
>>   Just another cop-out.
>
> just a simple question you bird brain. but obviously one too difficult
> for you, even tho you asked me to answer
>
>>   But then *comprehension* is *obviously* not your strong point.
>
> making sensible posts is certainly not yours
>
>> But then who`d know what is!.
>
> lots of ppl
>
> <snip left over rubbish>
>

The gibberish spewing tip shopper hasn't even learnt to read or write
for comprehension in 59 years. His only skill is smashing pies down his
gullet while steering with his guts.

--
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 4:08 pm, Daryl wrote:
> 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.
>

Darren offered to do work on Felix's car based upon the premise that he
was a dual qualified mechanic. He wasn't *retired* then, he said his
business was still operational (if you could even believe that!).
Anyway, *YOU* haven't even seen his claimed papers - and you won't
because the only place they exist is in Darren's delusional mind.

--
Xeno

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

On 4/12/2023 4:22 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> according to what Xeno says, and the checking he's done, it's impossible
> for noddy to have the qualifications and training he claims to have
>
He didn't even qualify for an AME apprenticeship anyway, needed year 10
minimum for that and Darren was only claiming year 9. Seems like Darren
had no clue about apprenticeship entry levels.

--
Xeno

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

On 4/12/2023 4:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.
>
> Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot fraudulently
> claim to have one. Since there is no licence requirement, it follows
> that there is no qualification required to be a mechanic. The only way
> that a lie could be told is if a customer asked what qualification he has.
>
And that is precisely the point we are making. Darren has *repeatedly*
claim dual automotive qualifications and offered to do work on Felix's
car on that basis.
--
Xeno

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

Keithr0 wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.
>
> Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot
> fraudulently claim to have one.

if that's true then what the hell has all the argument been about all
these years?

> Since there is no licence requirement, it follows that there is no
> qualification required to be a mechanic. The only way that a lie could
> be told is if a customer asked what qualification he has.
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 4/12/2023 4:18 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> 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.
>

For one you keep changing your nym to avoid killfiles, maybe that isn't
"dishonest" but it certainly deceptive so fuck off back where you belong.

--
Daryl

On 4/12/2023 4:25 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 3:22 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> according to what Xeno says, and the checking he's done, it's
>> impossible for noddy to have the qualifications and training he claims
>> to have
>>
> "According to what Xeno says" there's your problem right there.

Exactly, taking the word of someone who can't tell the difference
between their arse and elbow is stupid.

--
Daryl

On 4/12/2023 4:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.
>
> Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot fraudulently
> claim to have one. Since there is no licence requirement, it follows
> that there is no qualification required to be a mechanic. The only way
> that a lie could be told is if a customer asked what qualification he has.
>

Exactly.
Pieces of paper are for wiping your arse, demonstrated skills are what
determine being "qualified".

--
Daryl

Daryl wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 4:18 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> For one you keep changing your nym to avoid killfiles, maybe that
> isn't "dishonest" but it certainly deceptive so fuck off back where
> you belong.
>
>

geez what a terrible thing to do! changing my nym. it's not like I lied
about making a video of someone driving past my house. but I'll do as I
please, thank you, and where precisely do I belong, may I ask? and
finally you don't tell me what to do on a public forum, so you can get
to fuck off.

--
Have a nice day!..

On 4/12/2023 5:35 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 4:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.
>>
>> Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot
>> fraudulently claim to have one. Since there is no licence requirement,
>> it follows that there is no qualification required to be a mechanic.
>> The only way that a lie could be told is if a customer asked what
>> qualification he has.
>>
>
>
> Exactly.
> Pieces of paper are for wiping your arse, demonstrated skills are what
> determine being "qualified".
>
If that's the case, why does Darren make a *huge* issue here about 3
apprenticeships and two trade qualifications? Does he know something you
don't - like, trade qualifications *are important*.

Anyway, apprenticeships are all about learning the trade whilst
developing *and demonstrating* skills. If you don't demonstrate your
skills whilst undertaking your apprenticeship, how long do you think
your apprenticeship will last?

--
Xeno

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

On 4/12/2023 5:33 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 4:25 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 3:22 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> according to what Xeno says, and the checking he's done, it's
>>> impossible for noddy to have the qualifications and training he
>>> claims to have
>>>
>> "According to what Xeno says" there's your problem right there.
>
>
> Exactly, taking the word of someone who can't tell the difference
> between their arse and elbow is stupid.
>
That's you sorted then!

--
Xeno

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

On 4/12/2023 5:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 4:18 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> For one you keep changing your nym to avoid killfiles, maybe that isn't
> "dishonest" but it certainly deceptive so fuck off back where you belong.
>
LOL, that's truly funny. Darren's been a fraud (definitely dishonest)
claiming qualifications you *know* he doesn't have - but nary a word
from you. Felix changes a *nym* FFS, and that is *deceptive*? Seriously?
You, it would seem, are as deceptive as Darren. Sad really since I
initially had you pegged as honest. I've had to rethink that of late.

--
Xeno

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

Xeno wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 5:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 4:18 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> For one you keep changing your nym to avoid killfiles, maybe that
>> isn't "dishonest" but it certainly deceptive

nope. not deceptive since everyone knows it's 'me' regardless of what I
call myself

>> so fuck off back where you belong.
>>
> LOL, that's truly funny. Darren's been a fraud (definitely dishonest)
> claiming qualifications you *know* he doesn't have - but nary a word
> from you. Felix changes a *nym* FFS, and that is *deceptive*? Seriously?

ridiculous isn't it. I've been changing my nym periodically ever since
I've been on usenet. never knew it was a crime until now  :)

> You, it would seem, are as deceptive as Darren. Sad really since I
> initially had you pegged as honest. I've had to rethink that of late.
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 4/12/2023 4:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.
>>
>> Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot
>> fraudulently claim to have one.
>
> if that's true then what the hell has all the argument been about all
> these years?

You tell me, you're part of it. A couple of people here have an
obsession, alvey chips in with what he thinks are pithy remarks and you
follow on.

>> Since there is no licence requirement, it follows that there is no
>> qualification required to be a mechanic. The only way that a lie could
>> be told is if a customer asked what qualification he has.
>>
>
>

On 4/12/2023 9:04 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 4:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.
>>>
>>> Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot
>>> fraudulently claim to have one.
>>
>> if that's true then what the hell has all the argument been about all
>> these years?
>
> You tell me, you're part of it. A couple of people here have an
> obsession, alvey chips in with what he thinks are pithy remarks and you
> follow on.

Aw gee Keith,

Here, a nice tall glass of *"Don't cry baby"* topped off with a smidgeon
of *"grow a pair"*.

Almost forgot, you'll need this straw to *suck it up*!

--
Xeno

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

Keithr0 wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 4:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.
>>>
>>> Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot
>>> fraudulently claim to have one.
>>
>> if that's true then what the hell has all the argument been about all
>> these years?
>
> You tell me, you're part of it.

mechanics here have claimed noddy is not a qualified mechanic as he
claims to be, so rather a shoddy mechanic. Xeno has laid out the reasons
why he's not qualified, and claims he doesn't have a registration
number. this has been discussed here for years, so I'm surprised you
don't know the full story. but if it's true there's no mechanics licence
in Victoria, then wtf has it all been about? someone needs to explain.

> A couple of people here have an obsession, alvey chips in with what he
> thinks are pithy remarks and you follow on.
>
>>> Since there is no licence requirement, it follows that there is no
>>> qualification required to be a mechanic. The only way that a lie
>>> could be told is if a customer asked what qualification he has.
>>>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 4/12/2023 9:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 4:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.
>>>>
>>>> Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot
>>>> fraudulently claim to have one.
>>>
>>> if that's true then what the hell has all the argument been about all
>>> these years?
>>
>> You tell me, you're part of it.
>
> mechanics here have claimed noddy is not a qualified mechanic as he
> claims to be, so rather a shoddy mechanic. Xeno has laid out the reasons
> why he's not qualified, and claims he doesn't have a registration
> number. this has been discussed here for years, so I'm surprised you
> don't know the full story. but if it's true there's no mechanics licence
> in Victoria, then wtf has it all been about? someone needs to explain.

Nothing to do with licencing per se, everything to do with Darren
claiming he is something that he isn't. IOW, public misrepresentation of
trade qualifications, more widely known as *Fraud*. In fact, what
initially raised my suspicions that Darren might never have done an
apprenticeship was when he dissed trade qualifications as unnecessary.
That gave me the hint that he had never done an automotive
apprenticeship. His lack of knowledge on so many detail points of the
trade served only to convince me further. Then when he *elaborated* on
how he got his motor mechanic trade qualifications, his bullshit tale
fell to pieces. It was only downhill from there. Daryl posted a link
that made me realize it was impossible to do two apprenticeships back to
back in Victoria prior to 1992, much less three. The same link also
showed that AME apprenticeships required year 10 at high school, year 9
wouldn't cut it and required 4 years attendance at TAFE, not 3 as Darren
claimed. Darren also let slip that he left school before the end of year
9. Ultimately, it turned out *all* his trade claims were fraudulent!

Further, Darren has claimed to have done AC on cars. That *is* a
licenced subset of the motor trade, the Automotive Air Conditioning
Refrigerant Handling Licence, Australia wide, and a *Federal
requirement*. You need to be a *qualified trademan* in a relevant field
in order to get said licence. Darren's knackered. What's more, you don't
just get handed the licence because you have trade papers, you have to
have training, be assessed as competent, and have the requisite gear,
ie. AC gas recovery systems. I had the AC licence but I let it expire
when I retired, figured I wasn't going to be doing too many AC systems
in my retirement. Still have the gauge set but don't possess a recovery
outfit.

Xeno wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 9:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2023 4:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot
>>>>> fraudulently claim to have one.
>>>>
>>>> if that's true then what the hell has all the argument been about
>>>> all these years?
>>>
>>> You tell me, you're part of it.
>>
>> mechanics here have claimed noddy is not a qualified mechanic as he
>> claims to be, so rather a shoddy mechanic. Xeno has laid out the
>> reasons why he's not qualified, and claims he doesn't have a
>> registration number. this has been discussed here for years, so I'm
>> surprised you don't know the full story. but if it's true there's no
>> mechanics licence in Victoria, then wtf has it all been about?
>> someone needs to explain.
>
> Nothing to do with licencing per se, everything to do with Darren
> claiming he is something that he isn't. IOW, public misrepresentation
> of trade qualifications, more widely known as *Fraud*. In fact, what
> initially raised my suspicions that Darren might never have done an
> apprenticeship was when he dissed trade qualifications as unnecessary.
> That gave me the hint that he had never done an automotive
> apprenticeship. His lack of knowledge on so many detail points of the
> trade served only to convince me further. Then when he *elaborated* on
> how he got his motor mechanic trade qualifications, his bullshit tale
> fell to pieces. It was only downhill from there. Daryl posted a link
> that made me realize it was impossible to do two apprenticeships back
> to back in Victoria prior to 1992, much less three. The same link also
> showed that AME apprenticeships required year 10 at high school, year
> 9 wouldn't cut it and required 4 years attendance at TAFE, not 3 as
> Darren claimed. Darren also let slip that he left school before the
> end of year 9. Ultimately, it turned out *all* his trade claims were
> fraudulent!
>
> Further, Darren has claimed to have done AC on cars. That *is* a
> licenced subset of the motor trade, the Automotive Air Conditioning
> Refrigerant Handling Licence, Australia wide, and a *Federal
> requirement*. You need to be a *qualified trademan* in a relevant
> field in order to get said licence. Darren's knackered. What's more,
> you don't just get handed the licence because you have trade papers,
> you have to have training, be assessed as competent, and have the
> requisite gear, ie. AC gas recovery systems. I had the AC licence but
> I let it expire when I retired, figured I wasn't going to be doing too
> many AC systems in my retirement. Still have the gauge set but don't
> possess a recovery outfit.
>
> Another automotive licencing requirement is auto LPG. I was going to
> get one of those but the writing was on the wall for LPG in cars way
> back in 2000 so I never bothered. Don't see much LPG out there now, do
> you?
>
> A field that has just come into the licencing regime is working on
> HEVs, PHEVs & BEVs. Want to do anything on the high voltage areas in
> the above, need to have the training and certification under your
> belt. Don't think I'll bother doing the certification for those, can't
> see myself needing it.
>
>
>

Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 4:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2023 10:56 am, 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.
>>>>
>>>> Since there is no mechanics licence in Victoria, he cannot
>>>> fraudulently claim to have one.
>>>
>>> if that's true then what the hell has all the argument been about
>>> all these years?
>>
>> You tell me, you're part of it.
>
> mechanics here have claimed noddy is not a qualified mechanic as he
> claims to be, so rather a shoddy mechanic. Xeno has laid out the
> reasons why he's not qualified, and claims he doesn't have a
> registration number. this has been discussed here for years, so I'm
> surprised you don't know the full story. but if it's true there's no
> mechanics licence in Victoria, then wtf has it all been about? someone
> needs to explain.

besides it's already explained in this post you replied to. don't you
read what you reply to?

>
>> A couple of people here have an obsession, alvey chips in with what
>> he thinks are pithy remarks and you follow on.
>>
>>>> Since there is no licence requirement, it follows that there is no
>>>> qualification required to be a mechanic. The only way that a lie
>>>> could be told is if a customer asked what qualification he has.
>>>>
>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

Daryl wrote:
> On 4/12/2023 4:18 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> For one you keep changing your nym to avoid killfiles,

lol!
Yeah, that certainly overshadows all the whopping great lies that YLM
has coughed up.

> maybe that isn't "dishonest" but it certainly deceptive so fuck off back where you belong.

lol #2

So if "deceptive" equals "fuck off" in your world Deryl, what does
"dishonest" equate to? Atm it looks like dinner at Fraudsters place.

alvey
Opining that being a raging hypocrite must be mandatory to join the
Enablers.