On 19/01/2022 11:22 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/01/2022 5:28 pm, alvey wrote:

>>
>> What is your favourite colour?
>> (You have 15 minutes)
>
> Pantone 368.
>
> I have worked out why you are reluctant to show your face - you're in a
> witless protection scheme.

Lol :)

I think Alvey's biggest worry would be that he doesn't want anyone to
discover that he's as much of an utter fucktard in real life as he is
here :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/01/2022 6:16 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/01/2022 1:46 am, Clocky wrote:

>> The is a public forum, so answer them publicly. You expect answers to
>> your questions.
>
> In polite society, which you obviously aren't a member of, you ASK a
> question and an answer is requested not DEMANDED. You'd have made a good
> Gestapo interrogator "Answer ze question, ve haf ways to make you talk".

Not just that, but if you ask a question and it becomes clear even to a
concrete statue that you're not going to get an answer, then continuing
to stamp your feet and ask the same question over and over does nothing
other than make you look like a complete moron :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/01/2022 6:21 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/01/2022 8:21 am, alvey wrote:

>> Look *keithr0*, which I'm guessing isn't your real name, I know you're
>> desperate, but this is just plain silly.
>
> My name is Keith, my surname begins with R, and the zero differentiates
> me from all the other keithrs out there.
>
> It's a bit different from calling yourself something stupid like
> "Yosemite sam"

Or Felix_Unger, or whatever other ridiculous nyms that he probably
pissed himself at thinking they were hilarious.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 20/01/2022 12:29 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 12:06:46 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:

>> to be said, a quite common occurrence. Up to 50% of apprentices in
>> Victoria, for instance, don't complete for whatever reason though, it's
>> usually the acquisition of a car, or a girlfriend, or both. That's why
>> Richmond ran apprentice catchup classes a couple of evenings a week.
> ~~~~~~~
> Whatever *point* yer trying to make here, is so obscure as to be considered MIA .

The only thing he ever manages to do is shoot himself in the head with
his own bullshit, just like he's done here.

One of the *many* ridiculous claims he made some time ago was that I
would never have been retrenched as a 3rd year apprentice, as that
simply never happened according to him. It was his claim that
apprentices never got the sack, and that I would have been allowed to
continue until I finished my time or alternative employment would have
been arranged.

Yet in this paragraph of his above he is saying the complete *opposite*
in declaring that up to *half* of all apprentices in Victoria never
finished their time "for whatever reason".

It doesn't matter *what* the topic, you simply *cannot* believe a word
this unhinged cunt ever says.....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 13:41:48 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 20/1/2022 1:15 pm, Noddy wrote:
> > On 20/01/2022 10:25 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 19 January 2022 at 01:34:48 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >
> >>> so because I agree with someone, I'm incapable of independent
> >>> intelligent thought.
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~
> >> That`s how you come across. Yer a coat tailer, a yes man, no more no
> >> less.
> >>
> >> that's illogical, but typical for you.
> >> ~~~
> >> nup, its a case of *just the facts Ma'am.
> >
> > It's not *because* he agrees with someone, but *why* he does.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with agreeing with someone if you share their
> > sentiment and believe what they're saying is accurate. People do it all
> > the time and it's no big deal. But by and large Felix doesn't do that.
> >
> > he doesn't agree with people based on veracity of what they're saying,
> > but rather on who is making the comment. 99 times out of 100 that I've
> > seen he has no idea of what's being talked about, and simply chooses to
> > agree with comments from "Person X" without having any idea if what
> > they're saying is accurate or not.
> >
> > He does it all the time and repeatedly demonstrates that he is in fact
> > an automaton who is quite incapable of independent intelligent thought.
> >
> >
> >
> Anyone who believes your grandiose claims or, worse, supports them, is
> certainly quite incapable of independent intelligent thought.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`~~
IF, (as you no doubt *are*) including moi in this, *I don`t GAF!!* about papers, you clown...(How many times do i have to say it?) So *I`m* not supporting any *claims*..My only concern is the ability to get the (whatever) job done safely, competently, and well. Which from what has been said, and what i`ve seen, he can call himself a mechanic anytime he likes!. Copy that? Whereas *you*? zip, zilch, nada..
This:

Had he not *hammered me* about my possession of trade qualifications, the
*truth* about his grandiose bullshit claims of qualifications would have
never seen the light of day.
~~~~
Hammered???. Anyhoo, you *believed* him. Then got ya panties in a twist on *payback* and it`s been yer Raison D'Etre ever since!.
Yer nothing more than a vindictive, old, lying, cunt.! With *no* strings left to yer bow. PFffftttt.
Wheres the cars krypsis.????

Thanks for
> bringing the matter to notice.
> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 20/1/2022 2:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 12:29 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 12:06:46 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>
>>> to be said, a quite common occurrence. Up to 50% of apprentices in
>>> Victoria, for instance, don't complete for whatever reason though, it's
>>> usually the acquisition of a car, or a girlfriend, or both. That's why
>>> Richmond ran apprentice catchup classes a couple of evenings a week.
>> ~~~~~~~
>>   Whatever *point* yer trying to make here, is so obscure as to be
>> considered MIA .
>
> The only thing he ever manages to do is shoot himself in the head with
> his own bullshit, just like he's done here.
>
> One of the *many* ridiculous claims he made some time ago was that I
> would never have been retrenched as a 3rd year apprentice, as that
> simply never happened according to him. It was his claim that
> apprentices never got the sack, and that I would have been allowed to

Apprentices can get the sack but apprentices cannot be *retrenched*, and
many have been. It is, however, not an easy or straightforward process.
An apprentice, at 3rd year, most definitely wouldn't even get sacked
UNLESS they proved totally incompetent. Hmmm, there's a thought.

But the above discussion is, quite frankly, moot since you never
qualified for an aviation apprenticeship in the first place. The reason,
you needed an absolute minimum of 4th year high school with relevant
passes. *YOU* didn't even pass 3rd year at tech school. FFS, you didn't
even *complete* 3rd year and *that was by your own admission*.

> continue until I finished my time or alternative employment would have
> been arranged.
>
> Yet in this paragraph of his above he is saying the complete *opposite*
> in declaring that up to *half* of all apprentices in Victoria never
> finished their time "for whatever reason".

By that I mean they *leave* the trade, ie, resign from their employer
(they can do that, just can't be retrenched) or, alternatively, simply
do not finish school but go on to finish their time. That leaves them
*unqualified* but with time served. Had you ever been an apprentice, you
would know how it all works. But you never were an apprentice, PROV
proves that beyond a shadow of doubt. About 10 years back the Vic Govt.
had a think tank looking into the issue because apprenticeship
non-completions became a critical issue. It remains a critical issue to
this day.
>
> It doesn't matter *what* the topic, you simply *cannot* believe a word
> this unhinged cunt ever says.....

Ah Darren, glad to see I am *still* getting under your skin. Gladdens my
old heart, it does! If only you could see the grin on my face as I tye this!

--
Xeno

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

On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 15:40:47 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 20/1/2022 2:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
> > On 20/01/2022 12:29 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 12:06:46 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> >
> >>> to be said, a quite common occurrence. Up to 50% of apprentices in
> >>> Victoria, for instance, don't complete for whatever reason though, it's
> >>> usually the acquisition of a car, or a girlfriend, or both. That's why
> >>> Richmond ran apprentice catchup classes a couple of evenings a week.
> >> ~~~~~~~
> >> Whatever *point* yer trying to make here, is so obscure as to be
> >> considered MIA .
> >
> > The only thing he ever manages to do is shoot himself in the head with
> > his own bullshit, just like he's done here.
> >
> > One of the *many* ridiculous claims he made some time ago was that I
> > would never have been retrenched as a 3rd year apprentice, as that
> > simply never happened according to him. It was his claim that
> > apprentices never got the sack, and that I would have been allowed to
> Apprentices can get the sack but apprentices cannot be *retrenched*, and
> many have been.
~~~~~
WOT?.

It is, however, not an easy or straightforward process.
> An apprentice, at 3rd year, most definitely wouldn't even get sacked
> UNLESS they proved totally incompetent. Hmmm, there's a thought.
>
> But the above discussion is, quite frankly, moot since you never
> qualified for an aviation apprenticeship in the first place. The reason,
> you needed an absolute minimum of 4th year high school with relevant
> passes. *YOU* didn't even pass 3rd year at tech school. FFS, you didn't
> even *complete* 3rd year and *that was by your own admission*.
> > continue until I finished my time or alternative employment would have
> > been arranged.
> >
> > Yet in this paragraph of his above he is saying the complete *opposite*
> > in declaring that up to *half* of all apprentices in Victoria never
> > finished their time "for whatever reason".
> By that I mean they *leave* the trade, ie, resign from their employer
> (they can do that, just can't be retrenched) or, alternatively, simply
> do not finish school but go on to finish their time. That leaves them
> *unqualified* but with time served. Had you ever been an apprentice, you
> would know how it all works. But you never were an apprentice, PROV
> proves that beyond a shadow of doubt. About 10 years back the Vic Govt.
> had a think tank looking into the issue because apprenticeship
> non-completions became a critical issue. It remains a critical issue to
> this day.
~~~~~~~~`
Bad case of brain fade there kryppy.
> >
> > It doesn't matter *what* the topic, you simply *cannot* believe a word
> > this unhinged cunt ever says.....
~~~~~
Seems so.
> Ah Darren, glad to see I am *still* getting under your skin. Gladdens my
> old heart, it does! If only you could see the grin on my face as I tye this!
~~~~~``
It`s all in yer melon kryppy, I think he just shakes his head and thinks WTF?. I sure do.
Anyhoo , Eternal September seems to be behaving itself at the mo. So, it`s back in the bin for you.
> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 20/01/2022 4:40 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 15:40:47 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:

>>> One of the *many* ridiculous claims he made some time ago was that I
>>> would never have been retrenched as a 3rd year apprentice, as that
>>> simply never happened according to him. It was his claim that
>>> apprentices never got the sack, and that I would have been allowed to

>> Apprentices can get the sack but apprentices cannot be *retrenched*, and
>> many have been.
> ~~~~~
> WOT?.

ROTFL :)

I thought *exactly* the same thing. This fucking imbecile waffles on
with *so* much bullshit that he has no idea what he's saying :)

>>> Yet in this paragraph of his above he is saying the complete *opposite*
>>> in declaring that up to *half* of all apprentices in Victoria never
>>> finished their time "for whatever reason".

>> By that I mean they *leave* the trade, ie, resign from their employer
>> (they can do that, just can't be retrenched) or, alternatively, simply
>> do not finish school but go on to finish their time. That leaves them
>> *unqualified* but with time served. Had you ever been an apprentice, you
>> would know how it all works. But you never were an apprentice, PROV
>> proves that beyond a shadow of doubt. About 10 years back the Vic Govt.
>> had a think tank looking into the issue because apprenticeship
>> non-completions became a critical issue. It remains a critical issue to
>> this day.
> ~~~~~~~~`
> Bad case of brain fade there kryppy.

And, as usual, another load of arse covering goalpost shifting bullshit
to boot :)

Apprentices can be retrenched, and apprentices have *always* been able
to be retrenched. You cannot force a business to maintain someone's
employment if they're no longer able to do so, and to suggest otherwise
is nonsensical.

Just to prove Clasener wrong yet *again*, here's a few links he might
like to read to educate himself:

Here:
> https://aen.org.au/outoftrade/#:~:text=The%20Retrenched%20Apprentices%20and%20Trainees,their%20employment%20complete%20their%20training.

and here:
> https://www.victorianchamber.com.au/news/next-steps-for-retrenched-apprentices-and-trainees

and here:
> https://www.theapprenticeshipfactory.com.au/apprenticeships/retrenched-apprentices-and-trainees-program

These three pages provide information for both apprentices and employers
with regards to retrenchment, and there are many more. As I said, you
can retrench apprentices, and you've *always* been able to do so. The
only apparent difference between when I was a kid and now is that there
are "network" programs in place to assist those who find themselves out
of a job.

Stand by for *another* massive goalpost shift. We must be just about at
the point where he does a 180 degree turn and starts feeding your own
comments back to you as if that's what he was saying all along.

>>> It doesn't matter *what* the topic, you simply *cannot* believe a word
>>> this unhinged cunt ever says.....
> ~~~~~
> Seems so.

>> Ah Darren, glad to see I am *still* getting under your skin. Gladdens my
>> old heart, it does! If only you could see the grin on my face as I tye this!
> ~~~~~``

> It`s all in yer melon kryppy, I think he just shakes his head and thinks WTF?. I sure do.

I gave up the WTF's a long time ago. Now I just wonder about what kind
of life this miserable cretin must have had to turn him into the
pathetic heap of oily shit he is today.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 20/01/2022 3:17 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 13:41:48 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:

> Had he not *hammered me* about my possession of trade qualifications, the
> *truth* about his grandiose bullshit claims of qualifications would have
> never seen the light of day.

> ~~~~
> Hammered???. Anyhoo, you *believed* him. Then got ya panties in a twist on *payback* and it`s been yer Raison D'Etre ever since!.

That's about the size of it :)

I couldn't have cared less about his trade qualifications, or anything
else he whined about. What got his feathers ruffled was that I never
bought his bullshit about being a trade teacher at Richmond Tech because
unlike him I was actually *there* and I knew the layout of the grounds
perfectly well.

He did not. Either as Krypsis *or* Xeno lith :)

> Yer nothing more than a vindictive, old, lying, cunt.! With *no* strings left to yer bow. PFffftttt.

Yep. He went from kissing my arse to sticking pins into a voodoo doll he
made of me and all because I pegged him as the shit talking cunt that he is.

Fantastic :)

> Wheres the cars krypsis.????

In his head. Along with everything else he's laid claim to having own,
known or done.

Wonder if he wants to phone a friend?
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 20/01/2022 9:47 am, alvey wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 09:36:55 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 20/01/2022 9:18 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2022 6:02 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 20/01/2022 7:00 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 17:11:27 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19/01/2022 8:13 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 19:25:15 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 6:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 4:45 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:45 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 4:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 11:26 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:24 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 9:36 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2022 9:43 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come to that, is anything that you claim true, as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, you could just as easily be an elderly lesbian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disability pension in Redbank Plains driving a '67 Corolla.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the possibility that you don't exist at all and are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sock puppet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Game Over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cop out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You sound surprised. You didn't expect a genuine response, did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? This is Alvey you're talking to. The bloke who makes more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant noise than anyone but pisses himself and goes quiet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once you put him on the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no liar. you're up to your usual tricks of snipping the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was Keith who copped out. read the thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The alvey worshiper rides again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the juvenile nit-wit posts again. don't like the truth do you. you
>>>>>>>>>>> have that in common with your new BFF the fraudster.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Truth hurts doesn't it felix.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that was you. you're the one who copped out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your little mate was offered the chance of a face to face, but he was
>>>>>>>> too scared to take it up. That's a cop-out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep. Absolutely quaking in my thongs keith.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And pray tell, what exactly am I supposed to be scared of?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea alvey you tell me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't imagine, that's why I was asking. Besides, I don't need to "tell
>>>>> you" keith. It was *you* who blurted, "Your little mate was offered the
>>>>> chance of a face to face, but he was too scared to take it up".
>>>>>
>>>>> As the question remains unanswered, it's another dismal cop out from
>>>>> keith.
>>>>
>>>> As I have said, I have no idea why you are scared of a face to face,
>>>> but the fact remains that you obviously are.
>>>
>>> Illogical conclusion by any measure.
>>
>> What is illogical about it? I made an offer to meet him, he refuses for
>> reasons unexplained.
>
> Deliberately "unexplained" keith.

It would hardly be accidental

In your clichespeak it'd be, "beware of what you wish for".

I wish for good health and peace for all mankind. So what should I
beware of?

On 20/01/2022 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 20/1/2022 2:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 20/01/2022 12:29 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 12:06:46 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>>> to be said, a quite common occurrence. Up to 50% of apprentices in
>>>> Victoria, for instance, don't complete for whatever reason though, it's
>>>> usually the acquisition of a car, or a girlfriend, or both. That's why
>>>> Richmond ran apprentice catchup classes a couple of evenings a week.
>>> ~~~~~~~
>>>   Whatever *point* yer trying to make here, is so obscure as to be
>>> considered MIA .
>>
>> The only thing he ever manages to do is shoot himself in the head with
>> his own bullshit, just like he's done here.
>>
>> One of the *many* ridiculous claims he made some time ago was that I
>> would never have been retrenched as a 3rd year apprentice, as that
>> simply never happened according to him. It was his claim that
>> apprentices never got the sack, and that I would have been allowed to
>
> Apprentices can get the sack but apprentices cannot be *retrenched*, and
> many have been. It is, however, not an easy or straightforward process.
> An apprentice, at 3rd year, most definitely wouldn't even get sacked
> UNLESS they proved totally incompetent. Hmmm, there's a thought.
>

Absolutely right. It's easy to find alternative employment for a third
year unless they are grossly incompetent or profoundly fucking stupid.

On 20/01/2022 5:59 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 7:39 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 18/01/2022 5:22 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2022 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 18/1/22 4:50 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 17/01/2022 9:34 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, I said I was a *qualified mechanic*, I proved it. I
>>>>>> said I was a *TAFE teacher*, I proved that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you? I don't remember seeing any proof.
>>>>
>>>> You weren't included in the initial viewing. Supply me with a valid
>>>> email addy and I might consider it.
>>>>
>>> Why not just put them up somewhere like  on dropbox and post a link
>>> so that everybody can see them?
>>
>>
>> Would you throw your whole life out into the open? You made comments
>> recently about safeguarding what you put out into the public.
>
> Throw your whole life out there? We're talking about a couple of
> qualifications. Xeno's name and address are common knowledge, what else
> are they likely to reveal?

Are you that naive?

On 20/01/2022 9:55 am, Xeno wrote:
> On 20/1/2022 11:37 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 20/01/2022 9:50 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 08:59:56 UTC+11, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 20/01/2022 7:39 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 18/01/2022 5:22 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/1/22 4:50 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 9:34 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, I said I was a *qualified mechanic*, I proved it. I
>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>> I was a *TAFE teacher*, I proved that too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you? I don't remember seeing any proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You weren't included in the initial viewing. Supply me with a valid
>>>>>>> email addy and I might consider it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not just put them up somewhere like  on dropbox and post a
>>>>>> link so
>>>>>> that everybody can see them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you throw your whole life out into the open? You made comments
>>>>> recently about safeguarding what you put out into the public.
>>>> Throw your whole life out there? We're talking about a couple of
>>>> qualifications. Xeno's name and address are common knowledge, what else
>>>> are they likely to reveal?
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't really care what qualifications he may or may not
>>>> have, but he is repetitiously demanding that noddy reveal his so it
>>>> would seem reasonable that he does what he demands of others.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>   Some ppl seem to use er, qualifications (scraps of paper) as a
>>> crutch. Because thats *all they have* A *badge of honour* if you like.
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to reveal my qualifications as a software engineer -
>>>> absolutely none, but it didn't prevent me from a successful career
>>>> at it.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>   Absolutely!!. In a nutshell.
>>>
>>>>> The fraud encourages the posting stuff that *wasn't* made public,
>>>>> would
>>>>> you make your whole life public and hand them everything? I wouldn't.
>>>>> I'm just glad I didn't share Xeno's history with the FLCJC member who
>>>>> was pretending to be trustworthy at one time but proved himself to be
>>>>> the exact opposite. My decision totally vindicated there.
>>> ~~~~~~
>>>   UH-HUH.
>>
>> Yeah interesting. His memory of issues seems to be quite self
>> aggrandizing. His bullying and threats to me over the years have been
>> quite well documented in the group.
>>
>> I didn't share the photo of him that I found on facebook which was
>> done to me. I only ever shared information he himself had put on the
>> newsgroup. Yes he had shared his name here before. He conveniently
>> forgets that. He also constantly taunts me about having poor IT skills
>> because he found xeno's photo, but then accuses me of being a stalker.
>> Hmm HE found xeno's photo.... He states above I didn't share xeno's
>> history.... I wonder who is the stalker. He accuses others of the very
>> things he does himself.
>>
>>
> Stalkers (like you) use those things for nefarious gains. Clocky didn't
> hence not a stalker.
>
>

Correct. I have *never* shared here. "Grumpy" has a long track record of
doing *exactly* that.

On 20/1/2022 5:10 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 4:40 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 15:40:47 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>
>>>> One of the *many* ridiculous claims he made some time ago was that I
>>>> would never have been retrenched as a 3rd year apprentice, as that
>>>> simply never happened according to him. It was his claim that
>>>> apprentices never got the sack, and that I would have been allowed to
>
>>> Apprentices can get the sack but apprentices cannot be *retrenched*, and
>>> many have been.
>> ~~~~~
>>   WOT?.

Many have been *sacked*. Usually because of incompetence. Hmmmmm
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> I thought *exactly* the same thing. This fucking imbecile waffles on
> with *so* much bullshit that he has no idea what he's saying :)
>
In the time you claim you were an aviation apprentice, an apprentice
could resign, a lot did as Jonz is proof, but you couldn't be
retrenched. Any apprentice or employer had to have a *mutual agreement*
and there were three (3) parties to that agreement. These days that no
longer applies, the apprentice system now bears very little resemblance
to what it did in the 60s when I began mine, the 70s when I completed
mine and when you claimed you were an apprentice AME. In fact, it
changed a lot when the group apprenticeship schemes began in the 90s as
the apprentice was no longer apprenticed to a *garage* or *dealership*
but was instead apprenticed to a group apprenticeship scheme provider -
like the VACC. In fact, in automotive, the VACC was the first in
Victoria to run a motor mechanics group apprenticeship scheme.
>
>
>>>> Yet in this paragraph of his above he is saying the complete *opposite*
>>>> in declaring that up to *half* of all apprentices in Victoria never
>>>> finished their time "for whatever reason".
>
>>> By that I mean they *leave* the trade, ie, resign from their employer
>>> (they can do that, just can't be retrenched) or, alternatively, simply
>>> do not finish school but go on to finish their time. That leaves them
>>> *unqualified* but with time served. Had you ever been an apprentice, you
>>> would know how it all works. But you never were an apprentice, PROV
>>> proves that beyond a shadow of doubt. About 10 years back the Vic Govt.
>>> had a think tank looking into the issue because apprenticeship
>>> non-completions became a critical issue. It remains a critical issue to
>>> this day.
>> ~~~~~~~~`
>>   Bad case of brain fade there kryppy.
>
> And, as usual, another load of arse covering goalpost shifting bullshit
> to boot :)
>
> Apprentices can be retrenched, and apprentices have *always* been able
> to be retrenched. You cannot force a business to maintain someone's
> employment if they're no longer able to do so, and to suggest otherwise
> is nonsensical.

Nope, back in the era in question, it was by *mutual agreement* only.
>
> Just to prove Clasener wrong yet *again*, here's a few links he might
> like to read to educate himself:

Don't need to. You were referring to the 70s and 80s. In 1992, a lot of
laws changed. Then in 2001 the entire apprenticeship system changed -
Australia wide. What applied then does not apply now.
>
> Here:
>> https://aen.org.au/outoftrade/#:~:text=The%20Retrenched%20Apprentices%20and%20Trainees,their%20employment%20complete%20their%20training.
>>
>
> and here:
>> https://www.victorianchamber.com.au/news/next-steps-for-retrenched-apprentices-and-trainees
>>
>
> and here:
>> https://www.theapprenticeshipfactory.com.au/apprenticeships/retrenched-apprentices-and-trainees-program
>>
>
> These three pages provide information for both apprentices and employers
> with regards to retrenchment, and there are many more. As I said, you
> can retrench apprentices, and you've *always* been able to do so. The

You can now, you couldn't in the past. The world has changed since you
tried to foist your lies upon it.

You were never an apprentice, not in aviation (you didn't qualify) and
not in automotive (didn't qualify there either). What's more, you have
no idea of how automotive apprentices were trained. Your only insight
seems to come from *others* and not from personal experience.

> only apparent difference between when I was a kid and now is that there
> are "network" programs in place to assist those who find themselves out
> of a job.
>
They are nothing new. The VACC and other organisations had arrangements
back in the 70s and 80s.
>
> Stand by for *another* massive goalpost shift. We must be just about at
> the point where he does a 180 degree turn and starts feeding your own
> comments back to you as if that's what he was saying all along.
>
>
>>>> It doesn't matter *what* the topic, you simply *cannot* believe a word
>>>> this unhinged cunt ever says.....
>> ~~~~~
>>   Seems so.
>
>>> Ah Darren, glad to see I am *still* getting under your skin. Gladdens my
>>> old heart, it does! If only you could see the grin on my face as I
>>> tye this!
>> ~~~~~``
>
>>   It`s all in yer melon kryppy,  I think he just shakes his head and
>> thinks WTF?. I sure do.
>
> I gave up the WTF's a long time ago. Now I just wonder about what kind
> of life this miserable cretin must have had to turn him into the
> pathetic heap of oily shit he is today.

I wonder what made you into such an inveterate liar and bullshit artists
and I also wonder why you had to pollute the motor trade with your lies.

And I'm still getting to you.

--
Xeno

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

On 20/01/2022 9:38 am, alvey wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 08:02:46 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 20/01/2022 7:00 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 17:11:27 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/01/2022 8:13 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 19:25:15 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 6:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 4:45 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:45 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 4:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 11:26 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:24 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 9:36 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2022 9:43 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come to that, is anything that you claim true, as I previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, you could just as easily be an elderly lesbian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disability pension in Redbank Plains driving a '67 Corolla.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the possibility that you don't exist at all and are just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sock puppet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Game Over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cop out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You sound surprised. You didn't expect a genuine response, did
>>>>>>>>>>>> you? This is Alvey you're talking to. The bloke who makes more
>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant noise than anyone but pisses himself and goes quiet
>>>>>>>>>>>> once you put him on the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no liar. you're up to your usual tricks of snipping the context. it
>>>>>>>>>>> was Keith who copped out. read the thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The alvey worshiper rides again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the juvenile nit-wit posts again. don't like the truth do you. you
>>>>>>>>> have that in common with your new BFF the fraudster.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Truth hurts doesn't it felix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that was you. you're the one who copped out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your little mate was offered the chance of a face to face, but he was
>>>>>> too scared to take it up. That's a cop-out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. Absolutely quaking in my thongs keith.
>>>>>
>>>>> And pray tell, what exactly am I supposed to be scared of?
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea alvey you tell me.
>>>
>>> I can't imagine, that's why I was asking. Besides, I don't need to "tell
>>> you" keith. It was *you* who blurted, "Your little mate was offered the
>>> chance of a face to face, but he was too scared to take it up".
>>>
>>> As the question remains unanswered, it's another dismal cop out from keith.
>>
>> As I have said, I have no idea why you are scared of a face to face, but the
>> fact remains that you obviously are. It's another dismal cop out
>> from alvey aka the black knight.
>
> keith, I appreciate the obvious fact that you're desperate to try and save
> some long-gone cred, but this 'face to face' tactic is as poor a choice and
> as big a Fail as your Black Knight analogy. If you want a better example of
> a Python analogy then, "You're only making it worse for yourself!"
>
> Or, in closing, "Now go away. Or I shall taunt you a zecond time."

Alv, you have the worst case of rectomyopia that I have ever seen (and
I've seen quite a few), maybe some medical student could do a study as
his PhD thesis.

Anyway enjoy your weekend I'll be away for a few days so you can spend
the time in quiet contemplation.

On 20/01/2022 9:41 am, alvey wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 07:14:44 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>
>> On 19/01/2022 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2022 8:01 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 18/01/2022 8:25 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 18/01/2022 6:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 4:45 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:45 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 4:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 11:26 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:24 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 9:36 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2022 9:43 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come to that, is anything that you claim true, as I previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, you could just as easily be an elderly lesbian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disability pension in Redbank Plains driving a '67 Corolla.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the possibility that you don't exist at all and are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a sock puppet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Game Over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cop out.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You sound surprised. You didn't expect a genuine response, did
>>>>>>>>>>> you? This is Alvey you're talking to. The bloke who makes more
>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant noise than anyone but pisses himself and goes quiet
>>>>>>>>>>> once you put him on the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no liar. you're up to your usual tricks of snipping the context.
>>>>>>>>>> it was Keith who copped out. read the thread.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The alvey worshiper rides again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the juvenile nit-wit posts again. don't like the truth do you. you
>>>>>>>> have that in common with your new BFF the fraudster.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Truth hurts doesn't it felix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that was you. you're the one who copped out.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your little mate was offered the chance of a face to face, but he was
>>>>> too scared to take it up. That's a cop-out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> how far would he have to travel?
>>>>
>>> 10 Km maybe. Hardly a reason not to show.
>>
>> So because you won't answer questions relating to *public* comments you
>> made in a *public* newsgroup it's up to him to go out of his way to go
>> and see you for a private meeting for which you don't explain what purpose?
>>
>> And this seems reasonable to you does it?
>
> Probably. Given that keith seems to believe that the best way to get some
> face time with someone is to indulge in a flamme war with them. Or attempt
> to anyway.

Flame war eh? Well you'd know something about that since it's only thing
that you've done here, You've provided no useful information not even
any pertinent questions.

If it come to discussing flaming, you certainly can't take the moral
high ground with calling people things like "Fraudster", "Der Der",
"Grubby", "Village idiot" etc etc.

On 20/01/2022 7:40 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 9:14 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 19/01/2022 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2022 8:01 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 18/01/2022 8:25 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 18/01/2022 6:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 4:45 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:45 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 4:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 11:26 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:24 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 9:36 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2022 9:43 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come to that, is anything that you claim true, as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, you could just as easily be an elderly lesbian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disability pension in Redbank Plains driving a '67
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corolla. There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the possibility that you don't exist at all and are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a sock puppet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Game Over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cop out.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You sound surprised. You didn't expect a genuine response,
>>>>>>>>>>> did you? This is Alvey you're talking to. The bloke who makes
>>>>>>>>>>> more irrelevant noise than anyone but pisses himself and goes
>>>>>>>>>>> quiet once you put him on the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no liar. you're up to your usual tricks of snipping the
>>>>>>>>>> context. it was Keith who copped out. read the thread.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The alvey worshiper rides again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the juvenile nit-wit posts again. don't like the truth do you.
>>>>>>>> you have that in common with your new BFF the fraudster.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Truth hurts doesn't it felix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that was you. you're the one who copped out.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your little mate was offered the chance of a face to face, but he
>>>>> was too scared to take it up. That's a cop-out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> how far would he have to travel?
>>>>
>>> 10 Km maybe. Hardly a reason not to show.
>>
>>
>> So because you won't answer questions relating to *public* comments
>> you made in a *public* newsgroup it's up to him to go out of his way
>> to go and see you for a private meeting for which you don't explain
>> what purpose?
>
> Hardly out of his way, and it would hardly be a private meeting as I
> would expect him to immediately splash any information that he had
> managed to glean all over this NG.

That's exactly what the FLCJC does, has done and supports doing yet you
take no issue with that despite the fact there is a long history of them
doing exactly that. Like myself, I wouldn't expect Alvey to do that *at
all*.

On 20/1/2022 5:15 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 3:17 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 13:41:48 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>
>> Had he not *hammered me* about my possession of trade qualifications, the
>> *truth* about his grandiose bullshit claims of qualifications would have
>> never seen the light of day.
>
>> ~~~~
>> Hammered???.  Anyhoo, you *believed* him. Then got ya panties in a
>> twist on *payback* and it`s been yer Raison D'Etre ever since!.
>
> That's about the size of it :)

Not at all Darren. I just couldn't believe anyone could be such a
massive bullshit artist and self aggrandising loser. Then along you came
with bullshit stories and a lack of trade insight. At first your claim
to have done an aviation *sounded* plausible. As time progressed
however, blind Freddy could see you've never been within cooee of an
apprenticeship. Special dispensation from the DLI? hahahahahahah
>
> I couldn't have cared less about his trade qualifications, or anything
> else he whined about. What got his feathers ruffled was that I never
> bought his bullshit about being a trade teacher at Richmond Tech because
> unlike him I was actually *there* and I knew the layout of the grounds
> perfectly well.
>
> He did not. Either as Krypsis *or* Xeno lith :)

Funny how you didn't know there was a welding shop there Darren. Pity
also that you didn't know that motor mechanic apprentices *all* studied
welding as part of their apprenticeship and this was validated by none
other than Daryl who also did welding at Batman Automotive College.
>
> Yep. He went from kissing my arse to sticking pins into a voodoo doll he
> made of me and all because I pegged him as the shit talking cunt that he
> is.

Dream on.

--
Xeno

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

On 20/01/2022 2:24 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 9:47 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 09:36:55 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/01/2022 9:18 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 20/01/2022 6:02 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 20/01/2022 7:00 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 17:11:27 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19/01/2022 8:13 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 19:25:15 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 6:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 4:45 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:45 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 4:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 11:26 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:24 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 9:36 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2022 9:43 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come to that, is anything that you claim true, as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, you could just as easily be an elderly lesbian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disability pension in Redbank Plains driving a '67
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corolla.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the possibility that you don't exist at all and are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sock puppet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Game Over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cop out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You sound surprised. You didn't expect a genuine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response, did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? This is Alvey you're talking to. The bloke who makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant noise than anyone but pisses himself and goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quiet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once you put him on the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no liar. you're up to your usual tricks of snipping the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was Keith who copped out. read the thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The alvey worshiper rides again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the juvenile nit-wit posts again. don't like the truth do
>>>>>>>>>>>> you. you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have that in common with your new BFF the fraudster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Truth hurts doesn't it felix.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that was you. you're the one who copped out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your little mate was offered the chance of a face to face, but
>>>>>>>>> he was
>>>>>>>>> too scared to take it up. That's a cop-out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep. Absolutely quaking in my thongs keith.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And pray tell, what exactly am I supposed to be scared of?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no idea alvey you tell me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't imagine, that's why I was asking. Besides, I don't need to
>>>>>> "tell
>>>>>> you" keith. It was *you* who blurted, "Your little mate was
>>>>>> offered the
>>>>>> chance of a face to face, but he was too scared to take it up".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As the question remains unanswered, it's another dismal cop out from
>>>>>> keith.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have said, I have no idea why you are scared of a face to face,
>>>>> but the fact remains that you obviously are.
>>>>
>>>> Illogical conclusion by any measure.
>>>
>>> What is illogical about it? I made an offer to meet him, he refuses for
>>> reasons unexplained.
>>
>> Deliberately "unexplained" keith.
>
> It would hardly be accidental
>
> In your clichespeak it'd be, "beware of what you wish for".
>
> I wish for good health and peace for all mankind. So what should I
> beware of?
>

You implied Alvey would be "too scared". "Too scared" of what keith?

On 20/01/2022 9:47 am, Xeno wrote:
> On 20/1/2022 9:02 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 20/01/2022 7:00 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 17:11:27 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/01/2022 8:13 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 19:25:15 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 6:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 4:45 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:45 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 4:55 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 11:26 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 10:24 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 9:36 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2022 9:43 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come to that, is anything that you claim true, as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, you could just as easily be an elderly lesbian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disability pension in Redbank Plains driving a '67 Corolla.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the possibility that you don't exist at all and are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sock puppet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Game Over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cop out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You sound surprised. You didn't expect a genuine response, did
>>>>>>>>>>>> you? This is Alvey you're talking to. The bloke who makes more
>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant noise than anyone but pisses himself and goes quiet
>>>>>>>>>>>> once you put him on the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no liar. you're up to your usual tricks of snipping the
>>>>>>>>>>> context. it
>>>>>>>>>>> was Keith who copped out. read the thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The alvey worshiper rides again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the juvenile nit-wit posts again. don't like the truth do you. you
>>>>>>>>> have that in common with your new BFF the fraudster.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Truth hurts doesn't it felix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that was you. you're the one who copped out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your little mate was offered the chance of a face to face, but he was
>>>>>> too scared to take it up. That's a cop-out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. Absolutely quaking in my thongs keith.
>>>>>
>>>>> And pray tell, what exactly am I supposed to be scared of?
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea alvey you tell me.
>>>
>>> I can't imagine, that's why I was asking. Besides, I don't need to "tell
>>> you" keith. It was *you* who blurted, "Your little mate was offered the
>>> chance of a face to face, but he was too scared to take it up".
>>>
>>> As the question remains unanswered, it's another dismal cop out from
>>> keith.
>>
>> As I have said, I have no idea why you are scared of a face to face,
>> but the fact remains that you obviously are. It's another dismal cop
>> out from alvey aka the black knight.
>
> I invited you to drop in on your way past here some time ago. You didn't
> turn up at my door. Can I assume you too were scared of a face to face?
>
>

I doubt keith is interested in facts and evidence and is just here to troll.

On 20/1/2022 5:58 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 20/1/2022 2:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2022 12:29 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 12:06:46 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>>>> to be said, a quite common occurrence. Up to 50% of apprentices in
>>>>> Victoria, for instance, don't complete for whatever reason though,
>>>>> it's
>>>>> usually the acquisition of a car, or a girlfriend, or both. That's why
>>>>> Richmond ran apprentice catchup classes a couple of evenings a week.
>>>> ~~~~~~~
>>>>   Whatever *point* yer trying to make here, is so obscure as to be
>>>> considered MIA .
>>>
>>> The only thing he ever manages to do is shoot himself in the head
>>> with his own bullshit, just like he's done here.
>>>
>>> One of the *many* ridiculous claims he made some time ago was that I
>>> would never have been retrenched as a 3rd year apprentice, as that
>>> simply never happened according to him. It was his claim that
>>> apprentices never got the sack, and that I would have been allowed to
>>
>> Apprentices can get the sack but apprentices cannot be *retrenched*,
>> and many have been. It is, however, not an easy or straightforward
>> process. An apprentice, at 3rd year, most definitely wouldn't even get
>> sacked UNLESS they proved totally incompetent. Hmmm, there's a thought.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Absolutely right. It's easy to find alternative employment for a third
> year unless they are grossly incompetent or profoundly fucking stupid.

Especially in an industry (aviation) where there was a shortage and the
apprentice intake was growing year on year during the era in question,
even *after* Darren's *claimed* retrenchment was supposed to have taken
place.. I have data, kindly provided by Daryl, to prove that. As I said
in another post, Darren's claims sound plausible at first, especially to
people not involved in the trades. But then, when you analyse what
Darren says, the bullshit comes bubbling to the surface.

--
Xeno

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

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 17:15:52 +1100, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 3:17 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:

>
>> ~~~~
>> Hammered???. Anyhoo, you *believed* him. Then got ya panties in a twist on *payback* and it`s been yer Raison D'Etre ever since!.
>
> That's about the size of it :)
>
> I couldn't have cared less about his trade qualifications, or anything
> else he whined about. What got his feathers ruffled was that I never
> bought his bullshit about being a trade teacher at Richmond Tech because
> unlike him I was actually *there* and I knew the layout of the grounds
> perfectly well.
>
> He did not. Either as Krypsis *or* Xeno lith :)
>
>> Yer nothing more than a vindictive, old, lying, cunt.! With *no* strings left to yer bow. PFffftttt.
>
> Yep. He went from kissing my arse to sticking pins into a voodoo doll he
> made of me and all because I pegged him as the shit talking cunt that he is.
>
> Fantastic :)
>
>> Wheres the cars krypsis.????
>
> In his head. Along with everything else he's laid claim to having own,
> known or done.
>
> Wonder if he wants to phone a friend?

This pair need to phone psychs asap.

alvey

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

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:58:50 +1100, Noddy wrote:

> On 20/01/2022 12:29 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 12:06:46 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>
>>> to be said, a quite common occurrence. Up to 50% of apprentices in
>>> Victoria, for instance, don't complete for whatever reason though, it's
>>> usually the acquisition of a car, or a girlfriend, or both. That's why
>>> Richmond ran apprentice catchup classes a couple of evenings a week.
>> ~~~~~~~
>> Whatever *point* yer trying to make here, is so obscure as to be considered MIA .
>
> The only thing he ever manages to do is shoot himself in the head with
> his own bullshit, just like he's done here.
>
> One of the *many* ridiculous claims he made some time ago was that I
> would never have been retrenched as a 3rd year apprentice, as that
> simply never happened according to him. It was his claim that
> apprentices never got the sack, and that I would have been allowed to
> continue until I finished my time or alternative employment would have
> been arranged.
>
> Yet in this paragraph of his above he is saying the complete *opposite*
> in declaring that up to *half* of all apprentices in Victoria never
> finished their time "for whatever reason".

There's only two options here.

1. Gibbens is laying the groundwork for an insanity plea to a crime yet to
be committed.
2. He is already insane.

alvey

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

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:41:55 +1100, Noddy wrote:

> On 20/01/2022 11:37 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 20/01/2022 9:50 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>
>> Yeah interesting. His memory of issues seems to be quite self
>> aggrandizing. His bullying and threats to me over the years have been
>> quite well documented in the group.
>>
>> I didn't share the photo of him that I found on facebook which was done
>> to me. I only ever shared information he himself had put on the
>> newsgroup. Yes he had shared his name here before. He conveniently
>> forgets that. He also constantly taunts me about having poor IT skills
>> because he found xeno's photo, but then accuses me of being a stalker.
>> Hmm HE found xeno's photo.... He states above I didn't share xeno's
>> history.... I wonder who is the stalker. He accuses others of the very
>> things he does himself.
>
> He does, and seemingly has no problem with it whenever he *does* do it
> himself. Like when he thought it was a great joke to help himself to my
> profile pic and upload it to some pisstake site for his own amusement,
> yet if you did the same thing to him you'd hear him crying about it for
> fucking *ages*.
>
> He just loves being a victim....

Ummmm Darren. You just pecked out a para of you playing the whining victim.

alvey
Wondering what %age of the Fraudsters posts this year have been about those
whose opinions he "couldn't care less about"? Must be >90%.

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

On 20/01/2022 3:32 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:41:55 +1100, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 20/01/2022 11:37 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2022 9:50 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah interesting. His memory of issues seems to be quite self
>>> aggrandizing. His bullying and threats to me over the years have been
>>> quite well documented in the group.
>>>
>>> I didn't share the photo of him that I found on facebook which was done
>>> to me. I only ever shared information he himself had put on the
>>> newsgroup. Yes he had shared his name here before. He conveniently
>>> forgets that. He also constantly taunts me about having poor IT skills
>>> because he found xeno's photo, but then accuses me of being a stalker.
>>> Hmm HE found xeno's photo.... He states above I didn't share xeno's
>>> history.... I wonder who is the stalker. He accuses others of the very
>>> things he does himself.
>>
>> He does, and seemingly has no problem with it whenever he *does* do it
>> himself. Like when he thought it was a great joke to help himself to my
>> profile pic and upload it to some pisstake site for his own amusement,
>> yet if you did the same thing to him you'd hear him crying about it for
>> fucking *ages*.
>>
>> He just loves being a victim....
>
> Ummmm Darren. You just pecked out a para of you playing the whining victim.
>

Hasn't he just.

Posting his facebook *public* profile pic that *he* posted online but
was shared by someone else *here* is a whole different matter to
stalking and snooping to find information not made public here and
posting it here.
There is a *very* clear distinction.