On Wednesday, 19 January 2022 at 01:34:48 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 18/01/2022 10:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
> > On 18/01/2022 8:23 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >> On 18/01/2022 6:22 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> well said
> >>>
> >> Thus spake xeno's yes man.
> >
> > Yep. Completely incapable of independent, intelligent thought.
> 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.

> > Still, you can't expect much from a bloke who owned an evaporative
> > cooler for 20 years and used it wrong for the entire time despite
> > having the owner's manual which told him what to do :)
> >
> you can't help yourself can you. every time you open your mouth you lie.
> the way I used it was as per the manual, liar.
> --
> "his opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
> the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey the Fraudster

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.

On 19/01/2022 3:16 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/01/2022 1:46 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 18/01/2022 5:27 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2022 5:51 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:43:49 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 18/01/2022 7:22 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:43:46 +1100, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 8:23 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2022 6:32 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just come round to the Queensland Air Museum Pathfinder Drive
>>>>>>>>> Caloundra
>>>>>>>>>> tomorrow or Wednesday and maybe we can see what can be
>>>>>>>>>> answered. Museum
>>>>>>>>>> opens at 10am, and I'm there until 2pm  - CU there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're just being silly now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wasn't holding my breath, I didn't think that you'd have the
>>>>>>>> guts to
>>>>>>>> show your face.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder what it is that alvey needs to keep so mysterious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That he's a little wimp who only has lots to mouth off about when
>>>>>>> he can
>>>>>>> hide behind his nym on the internet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Said *Noddy*. From behind his mighty (snigger) killfail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do say some magnificently stupid things Fraudster. Ashley, you
>>>>>> say *a
>>>>>> lot* of stupid things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Said brave little alvey for whom the real world is just a step too
>>>>> far.
>>>>
>>>> Well that's your version of "reality" keith. In my version people give
>>>> straight answers to simple, valid questions.
>>>
>>> Seeing people face to face not sniping from behind  a 'nym.
>>
>> Cop out for not answering simple questions.
>>
>> 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.

In a reasonable society in reasonable discussions a reasonably posed
question isn't met with the ridiculous and often completely illogical
cop outs you habitually respond with.

You'd have made a good
> Gestapo interrogator "Answer ze question, ve haf ways to make you talk".

Ridiculously juvenile comment.

How does your

"Display your evidence"

fit in with your grand display of hypocrisy keith?

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."

alvey

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

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. It was just a courteous request to
come and say "Hello".

> And this seems reasonable to you does it?

Yes.

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.

alvey

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

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

alvey

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

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.
> >

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.

On 20/01/2022 8:59 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?
>
> Personally, I don't really care what qualifications he may or may not
> have, but he is repetitiously demanding that noddy reveal his

because there's very good reason to believe he lying about having any

> so it would seem reasonable that he does what he demands of others.

he has. to those he trusts.

>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>>
>

--
"his opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster

On 20/1/2022 8:42 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 18/01/2022 8:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 18/1/2022 8:22 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?
>>
>> I think Fred made the point quite clearly that it would not be wise to
>> do so. I concurred, especially in the light of what Darren said when
>> he found out I hadn't included *him*.
>>
>
>
> Didn't Jonz see them? Whatever he thinks of you now he can't deny that
> what you say in relation to your work history and qualifications is
> absolutely true.

Can't recall. Besides, Jonz is miffed now because Darren put him on the
spot when he asked him if he was qualified. To Jonz' credit, he answered
honestly and stated he didn't finish his apprenticeship. That is, it has
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.

--
Xeno

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

On 20/01/2022 10:14 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?
>
> And this seems reasonable to you does it?

yes, because of his superior attitude

--
"his opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster

On 20/01/2022 12:06 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 20/1/2022 8:42 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 18/01/2022 8:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 18/1/2022 8:22 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?
>>>
>>> I think Fred made the point quite clearly that it would not be wise
>>> to do so. I concurred, especially in the light of what Darren said
>>> when he found out I hadn't included *him*.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Didn't Jonz see them?

yes he did

>> Whatever he thinks of you now he can't deny that what you say in
>> relation to your work history and qualifications is absolutely true.
>
> Can't recall. Besides, Jonz is miffed now because Darren put him on
> the spot when he asked him if he was qualified. To Jonz' credit, he
> answered honestly and stated he didn't finish his apprenticeship. That
> is, it has 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.
>

--
"his opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster

On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 12:06:46 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 20/1/2022 8:42 am, Clocky wrote:
> > On 18/01/2022 8:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
> >> On 18/1/2022 8:22 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?
> >>
> >> I think Fred made the point quite clearly that it would not be wise to
> >> do so. I concurred, especially in the light of what Darren said when
> >> he found out I hadn't included *him*.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Didn't Jonz see them? Whatever he thinks of you now he can't deny that
> > what you say in relation to your work history and qualifications is
> > absolutely true.
> Can't recall.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
Can`t recall?. Convenient memory lapse there kryppy.

Besides, Jonz is miffed now because Darren put him on the
> spot when he asked him if he was qualified.
~~~~~~`
No shit?. Miffed, on the spot eh,? now *why* would that be?, more to the point, *when* would that be. (So I can get *un-miffed* Whoo hoo. :)))
Yer a laugh a minute kryppy. I`ve *always* been *upfront* about What, when, and why!.
To Jonz' credit, he answered
> honestly and stated he didn't finish his apprenticeship.
~~~~~~
So, when did the *miffery* come about. <G>
That is, it has
> 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 .
>
> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 20/1/2022 8:59 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?

Hey, I'm in the phonebook FFS. That's pretty public. But that's just a
name and address. The trade qualifications, as you would (should) know,
contain information people might not want public. That much was stated
by Fred when he viewed what I sent him. Anyway, my qualifications, as
much as needs to be *public* are available on LinkedIn. If I was
applying for a job, I would list the same on my résumé and include it
with my application. Those *claims* on my résumé would be verified long
before I was ever invited for an interview.
>
> 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.

I did, to *trusted* posters here. I didn't make it widely public for the
above reason and that was *confirmed* when Darren *publicly* stated what
he would do with them were he to get hold of them.
>
> 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.

The difference, you have never claimed to have qualifications in that
field. I have worked in network administration at the college yet I have
absolutely zero qualifications in IT - and never claimed I did. I do
have precisely one apprenticeship qualification and a number of advanced
(Cert IV) trade qualifications but I actually do have the paperwork for
them. As with Clocky's trade papers, mine can be publicly verified.
Clocky's can be verified on-line, not sure whether Tasmania has that
facility, I have never needed to check. After all, I have the actual
paperwork with *my* unique registration number on it. Clocky knows that
number now, perhaps he has checked up on it.

Darren, on the other hand, is claiming 3 apprenticeships and two trade
qualifications, something that simply was not possible in Victoria in
the 70s or 80s and definitely not until laws were repealed in 1992. 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. I had not questioned his claim of an
apprenticeship in Aviation nor in auto machining until he made
*obviously* bullshit claims about being a *qualified* motor mechanic.
Even then, it was his obvious *lack of knowledge* of automotive
technical details, like valve timing affecting effective compression
ratio, that I knew apprentices learnt very early on that caused me to
doubt his motor mechanics claims. FFS, effective compression ratio is
something people in *aviation* know very well and so do people involved
in *drag racing* and *supercharging*. That cast doubt on all his trade
claims and so it came to pass that every single claim Darren made with
regard to trade qualifications proved entirely bogus and all it took was
a phone call to a former colleague who worked at VetAssess. In fact, in
making said claims *publicly*, Darren was operating his *home* business
*fraudulently*.
>
>> 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.
>>
>

--
Xeno

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

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?

--
Xeno

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

On 20/1/2022 10:40 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. It was just a courteous request to
> come and say "Hello".

Somehow, I doubt Alvey would do that. Darren, on the other hand, would -
he has publicly stated as much. Actually, that brings to mind an event
in Darren's past where he was visited by Paul. When things turned sour
between he and Paul, Darren began slinging off about Paul in the only
way he could - by denigrating the fact Paul carried an iPad with him.
Hmmm, sounds like a tactic familiar to the craven Darren.
>
>> And this seems reasonable to you does it?
>
> Yes.

--
Xeno

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

On 20/1/2022 10:41 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.
>
Had Keith dropped in here when I made the offer, I could have shown him
my actual papers.
>
>
> alvey
>

--
Xeno

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

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.

--
Xeno

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

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.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

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. 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 20/01/2022 8:59 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 7:39 am, Clocky wrote:

>> 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.

A more important, and often overlooked point, is why these cretins think
they have a *right* to my personal information. Clasener and Jerkoff
volunteered their information without anyone asking for it or giving a
fuck about it to be honest, and *now* they're of the misguided belief
that because they've laid themselves bare (to a select few people) that
I have some obligation to hand over anything they want about myself.

It's nonsensical, but then this is the level of mentality that you're
dealing with here, and it's been going on for years. These people are
fucking lunatics :)

> 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.

As I've said many times, qualifications don't automatically guarantee
that the person who holds them has any idea what they're talking about,
and you'll see no better examples of that than looking at the two
biggest qualification braggarts in this group, namely Xeno and Clocky.

Here are two people who have seemingly pandered to their massive
inferiority complexes by going out of their way to prove to the group
(well, a small number of people in the group) of their qualification
status, yet these very same two people have made some of the most
completely clueless and utterly nonsensical comments about automotive
practices you could possibly ever find. Comments about brake systems,
carburetors or valve clearances that are bordering on complete
cluelessness, or a total lack of understanding of something as basic as
windscreen composition. One of these fucking idiots even seriously
contemplated the idea of retrimming his poverty pack Commodore using his
wife's Janome sewing machine.

It does not get any more clueless than this, yet these people brag about
their qualifications on a virtual daily basis which to me does little
other than to show how *easy* it is for retards to slip through the
craps and become "clueless experts".

Thanks, but no thanks. I couldn't care less what bits of paper you can
wave under my nose. If I'm looking to hire someone I'm more interested
in their ability.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 20/1/2022 1:47 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 8:59 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 20/01/2022 7:39 am, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> A more important, and often overlooked point, is why these cretins think
> they have a *right* to my personal information. Clasener and Jerkoff

You made a claim to be dual qualified, you get to prove it. A trade
qualification is *public information*, that's why you or anyone else can
toddle off down to PROV and verify someone's claims yourself. If you are
a business and want to check the bona fides of a prospective employee,
you merely need to call a relevant number or, these days, log on to a
relevant website and verify said bona fides. You don't even need to see
the actual papers the applicant says he has. All that's needed is to
verify the applicant as the person linked to the qualification. That's
why every qualification is tagged with a unique number linked to a
single individual. You have no such number. You claim to have 2. Thus
you are a fraud.

> volunteered their information without anyone asking for it or giving a

You were asking. Repeatedly! But you cannot be trusted. And you weren't.
Those who were given the info could be trusted.

> fuck about it to be honest, and *now* they're of the misguided belief
> that because they've laid themselves bare (to a select few people) that
> I have some obligation to hand over anything they want about myself.

Hey Darren, I *know* you have no proof to show. You however have an
*obligation* to every poster past and present to prove your grandiose claims
>
> It's nonsensical, but then this is the level of mentality that you're
> dealing with here, and it's been going on for years. These people are
> fucking lunatics :)
>
>> 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.
>
> As I've said many times, qualifications don't automatically guarantee
> that the person who holds them has any idea what they're talking about,

Nobody is making that claim here Darren. Well, no one but you.

> and you'll see no better examples of that than looking at the two
> biggest qualification braggarts in this group, namely Xeno and Clocky.

Not at all Darren. You and you alone are the biggest qualification
braggart in this group because you *falsely claim 2* plus falsely claim
3 apprenticeships. I say falsely because you *don't actually have* that
which you claim. That makes you both a braggart and a bullshit artist of
the first order.
>
> Here are two people who have seemingly pandered to their massive
> inferiority complexes by going out of their way to prove to the group
> (well, a small number of people in the group) of their qualification
> status, yet these very same two people have made some of the most
> completely clueless and utterly nonsensical comments about automotive
> practices you could possibly ever find. Comments about brake systems,
> carburetors or valve clearances that are bordering on complete
> cluelessness, or a total lack of understanding of something as basic as
> windscreen composition. One of these fucking idiots even seriously
> contemplated the idea of retrimming his poverty pack Commodore using his
> wife's Janome sewing machine.
>
> It does not get any more clueless than this, yet these people brag about
> their qualifications on a virtual daily basis which to me does little
> other than to show how *easy* it is for retards to slip through the
> craps and become "clueless experts".
>
> Thanks, but no thanks. I couldn't care less what bits of paper you can

If you couldn't care about qualifications, why did you claim two (2)
trade quals and three (3) apprenticeships? That, in and of itself, says
you care about qualifications - a hell of a lot!

> wave under my nose. If I'm looking to hire someone I'm more interested
> in their ability.

You? Looking to hire? Hahahahahahhaha

--
Xeno

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

On 20/01/2022 11:55 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.

What gain did I get? Clocky has used information to belittle me so
therefore he has obtained nefarious gain and by your definition is a
stalker. The fact is I haven't really bothered to search out your photo
as you are insignificant. There's no profit to me to obtain it as all I
will get is a photo of a person who is small both inside and out.

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....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.