On 2/02/2022 3:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 2/02/2022 10:52 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 2/02/2022 6:57 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:34:55 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I just think that you are rather a sad little person who is so ashamed
>>>> of what he has achieved in life that he doesn't want to talk about it.
>>> There's another trait you have in common with The Fraudster keith.
>>> Neither
>>> of you could reach a correct conclusion if you had your own GPS
>>> satellite
>>> network, a team of top tracker dogs and Bear Grylls as a guide. I'd
>>> opine
>>> the problem is that you're blinded by ego.
>>>
>>
>> interesting to note..
>>
>> 1. when attempting to denigrate his fellow humans he invariably uses
>> the adjectival term 'little'. this is an attempt at intimidation
>> intended to make the addressee feel insignificant and inferior. (keefy
>> considers himself superior to others). this is his obvious intent, as
>> he has no idea about the physical characteristics of his intended
>> victim. they may in fact be 6'4'' and 150 kilos.- not someone any
>> sensible person would describe as little.
>
> You can be 6'4" and still be insignificant.
>
>> 2. apart from being 'little' I am supposedly 'sad', and I have to
>> wonder what the basis or evidence for that conclusion is?  I'd opine
>> it's just said as an attempt to reinforce the intended belittling
>> effect of 'little' as described above.
>
>
>
>> 2. he suggests something rather curios- that someone would be ashamed
>> of their achievements. isn't an achievement by it's very nature
>> something to be proud of? why would someone be ashamed of an
>> achievement? perhaps a remorseful Mafia Don could be, if such an
>> animal could or would ever exist, and successful criminal activity
>> could be described as achievement, but no keefy, sorry to disappoint
>> you (well, not really sorry) I am not ashamed of any of my
>> achievements in life. but perhaps you may wonder- would I have liked
>> to have achieved more? sure, but I'm certain I'm not Robinson Caruso
>> in that. however, my life is not yet over, so who knows what I may
>> still achieve? but should there be anything of significance, it would
>> be for me to know, and you not.
>
> Since you refuse to even mention them, there are really only two
> possible options either you don't have any or that they are so
> insignificant that you feel ashamed.
>

Or they are none of anyone else's business here - which would be the
logical conclusion. Achievements are subjective and personal anyway.
One person might count 50 years at the same company doing 12 hour shifts
6 days a week for a cheap clock and a handshake as an achievement whilst
another might count their retirement at age 34 to go traveling, fishing
and surfing as theirs.

What business is it of yours and who the fuck are you to judge what
someone counts as an achievement?

On 3/02/2022 12:00 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 3/02/2022 1:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 2/02/2022 10:09 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 2/02/2022 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 2/02/2022 3:52 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>> On 2/02/2022 4:56 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:29:42 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 12:16 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:13:57 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 8:48 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:11:41 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:29:10 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lick lick. You're another who's balls are attached to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What? No response to Xeno Gumps? What say you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing. He's a nobody now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right. So no response from you then. There's a surprise.
>>>>>>>>>>> He's been offered an opportunity but as
>>>>>>>>>>> usual runs away faster and further than Forrest Gump.
>>>>>>>>>>> Basically he's not
>>>>>>>>>>> here to discuss cars, he's here to bully and harass much like
>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not a great choice of analogy there Gumps. Forrest ran *away*
>>>>>>>>>> from bullies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, the "opportunity" he was offered was a load of hugely
>>>>>>>>>> hypocritical
>>>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Btw, did you ever apologise to me for calling me a "problem
>>>>>>>>>> gambler"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No I must have forgotten...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/aus.sport.cricket/c/dN9ANYza7lk/m/mJT2PARI6_gJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How's that syndicate going?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could be wrong, but I don't think that it ever kicked off. Good
>>>>>>>> of you to
>>>>>>>> remind me of the Golden Age of usenet though. We (the QCCCC)
>>>>>>>> used to go out
>>>>>>>> for drinks at various seedy Briz CBD drinking spots. Lotta larfs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyhoo Gumps, an apology for that defamation please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're out of your mind. When I cop as much shit as I do from you
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> your mates, there's no way I'm going to apologize.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you won't retract a defamatory statement you made about me
>>>>>> because other
>>>>>> people put shit on you. That's a novel defence Gumps.
>>>>>
>>>>> You put shit on me all the time you buffoon. BTW How do you defame
>>>>> someone who doesn't actually exist.
>>>>
>>>> You know all my details and so does everyone else thanks to you
>>>> posting my personal details in this public forum without permission
>>>> for nefarious reasons *and* you then defamed me calling *me* a
>>>> "stalker".
>>>>
>>>> You even admitted that you went too far.
>>>>
>>>> A retraction and an apology will be fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   You're just a sock. No one here
>>>>> knows who the hell you are
>>>>
>>>> You know this how?
>>>>
>>>> but you sure as shit throw enough crap around
>>>>> to have people think you are full of your own importance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You throw shit sometimes it comes back at you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it's ok to declare that you're a child molesting, tax dodging
>>>>>> necrophiliac then because your heroic mate hurls abuse at me most
>>>>>> days?
>>>>>
>>>>> Go right ahead. It will only confirm my opinion that there's more
>>>>> than a few sheep running loose in the top paddock.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OIC but defaming someone as a "stalker" or another a "problem
>>>> gambler" is OK somehow?
>>>
>>> You're the victim when you have bullied, harassed and vilified me for
>>> years. Grow a brain idiot.
>>
>> Really? In that case I offer you a full retraction and unreserved
>> apology for every instance of bullying, harassment and vilification
>> for which you provide evidence of.
>
> Your bullying me with this intimidation and a conditional apology which
> is not worth the time it took you to type it out. This is the first
> example as you are claiming something that is not the case. I posted
> what you had already divulged in the forum and it was not for nefarious
> reasons. You had already posted the information.

The evidence will prove otherwise.

Granted it was some
> time ago. You have called me a stalker on several occasions and I
> strongly object to that. I'll accept an unreserved apology, nothing
> more, nothing less.
>>
>> However you know all my details and so does everyone else thanks to
>> you posting my personal details in this public forum without
>> permission for nefarious reasons *and* you then publicly defamed me by
>> calling me a "stalker".
>>
>> You even admitted that you went too far.
>>
>> A full retraction and an unreserved apology will be fine.
>
> NO chance until you are prepared to do the same. Unconditional.
> Admitting that you have bullied and harassed me without equivocation.
>
>

You know all my details and so does everyone else thanks to
you posting my personal details in this public forum without
permission for nefarious reasons *and* you then publicly defamed me by
calling me a "stalker".

You even admitted that you went too far.

A full retraction and an unreserved apology please.

On 3/02/2022 2:38 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 3/02/2022 12:00 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 3/02/2022 1:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 2/02/2022 10:09 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>> On 2/02/2022 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 2/02/2022 3:52 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 4:56 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:29:42 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 12:16 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:13:57 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 8:48 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:11:41 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:29:10 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lick lick. You're another who's balls are attached to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What? No response to Xeno Gumps? What say you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing. He's a nobody now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right. So no response from you then. There's a surprise.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He's been offered an opportunity but as
>>>>>>>>>>>> usual runs away faster and further than Forrest Gump.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically he's not
>>>>>>>>>>>> here to discuss cars, he's here to bully and harass much
>>>>>>>>>>>> like you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not a great choice of analogy there Gumps. Forrest ran *away*
>>>>>>>>>>> from bullies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, the "opportunity" he was offered was a load of hugely
>>>>>>>>>>> hypocritical
>>>>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, did you ever apologise to me for calling me a "problem
>>>>>>>>>>> gambler"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No I must have forgotten...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/aus.sport.cricket/c/dN9ANYza7lk/m/mJT2PARI6_gJ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How's that syndicate going?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could be wrong, but I don't think that it ever kicked off. Good
>>>>>>>>> of you to
>>>>>>>>> remind me of the Golden Age of usenet though. We (the QCCCC)
>>>>>>>>> used to go out
>>>>>>>>> for drinks at various seedy Briz CBD drinking spots. Lotta larfs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyhoo Gumps, an apology for that defamation please.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're out of your mind. When I cop as much shit as I do from
>>>>>>>> you and
>>>>>>>> your mates, there's no way I'm going to apologize.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you won't retract a defamatory statement you made about me
>>>>>>> because other
>>>>>>> people put shit on you. That's a novel defence Gumps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You put shit on me all the time you buffoon. BTW How do you defame
>>>>>> someone who doesn't actually exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know all my details and so does everyone else thanks to you
>>>>> posting my personal details in this public forum without permission
>>>>> for nefarious reasons *and* you then defamed me calling *me* a
>>>>> "stalker".
>>>>>
>>>>> You even admitted that you went too far.
>>>>>
>>>>> A retraction and an apology will be fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   You're just a sock. No one here
>>>>>> knows who the hell you are
>>>>>
>>>>> You know this how?
>>>>>
>>>>> but you sure as shit throw enough crap around
>>>>>> to have people think you are full of your own importance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You throw shit sometimes it comes back at you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it's ok to declare that you're a child molesting, tax dodging
>>>>>>> necrophiliac then because your heroic mate hurls abuse at me most
>>>>>>> days?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go right ahead. It will only confirm my opinion that there's more
>>>>>> than a few sheep running loose in the top paddock.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OIC but defaming someone as a "stalker" or another a "problem
>>>>> gambler" is OK somehow?
>>>>
>>>> You're the victim when you have bullied, harassed and vilified me
>>>> for years. Grow a brain idiot.
>>>
>>> Really? In that case I offer you a full retraction and unreserved
>>> apology for every instance of bullying, harassment and vilification
>>> for which you provide evidence of.
>>
>> Your bullying me with this intimidation and a conditional apology
>> which is not worth the time it took you to type it out. This is the
>> first example as you are claiming something that is not the case. I
>> posted what you had already divulged in the forum and it was not for
>> nefarious reasons. You had already posted the information.
>
> The evidence will prove otherwise.
>
>  Granted it was some
>> time ago. You have called me a stalker on several occasions and I
>> strongly object to that. I'll accept an unreserved apology, nothing
>> more, nothing less.
>>>
>>> However you know all my details and so does everyone else thanks to
>>> you posting my personal details in this public forum without
>>> permission for nefarious reasons *and* you then publicly defamed me
>>> by calling me a "stalker".
>>>
>>> You even admitted that you went too far.
>>>
>>> A full retraction and an unreserved apology will be fine.
>>
>> NO chance until you are prepared to do the same. Unconditional.
>> Admitting that you have bullied and harassed me without equivocation.
>>
>>
>
> You know all my details and so does everyone else thanks to
> you posting my personal details in this public forum without
> permission for nefarious reasons *and* you then publicly defamed me by
> calling me a "stalker".
>
> You even admitted that you went too far.
>
> A full retraction and an unreserved apology please.
>
>
No chance. You're not accepting that your own behavior is unacceptable
so don't expect someone to apologize when you are bullying them into
admitting to doing something they didn't do.

I will accept an unconditional apology for you behaving the way you
have. Not a half smart and bullying type apology that doesn't accept
that your behavior has been abominable.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:12:23 +1000, keithr0 wrote:

> Since you refuse to even mention them, there are really only two
> possible options either you don't have any or that they are so
> insignificant that you feel ashamed.

Again, that's a very good Fraudster impersonation keith. He also routinely
brays that, "The only possibilities are...", when in fact, they aren't.
They're the only possibilities that suit his/your narrative.

In this case, there's also the possibility that, again, unlike you and Der
Der, felix isn't comfortable talking about himself.
Then there's the possibility he sees zero relevance to his achievments and
knowing how to pull an engine apart.
Then there's the possibility that he believes there are some serious
nutters in this group so releasing any personal details is a bad idea.

And there's a few other "possibilities" that I won't waste time on as you
should get the drift by now.

HTH

alvey

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

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:52:51 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:

> On 2/02/2022 4:56 pm, alvey wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:29:42 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/02/2022 12:16 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:13:57 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/02/2022 8:48 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:11:41 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:29:10 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lick lick. You're another who's balls are attached to another man.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What? No response to Xeno Gumps? What say you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing. He's a nobody now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right. So no response from you then. There's a surprise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's been offered an opportunity but as
>>>>>>> usual runs away faster and further than Forrest Gump. Basically he's not
>>>>>>> here to discuss cars, he's here to bully and harass much like you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a great choice of analogy there Gumps. Forrest ran *away* from bullies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, the "opportunity" he was offered was a load of hugely hypocritical
>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Btw, did you ever apologise to me for calling me a "problem gambler"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No I must have forgotten...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/aus.sport.cricket/c/dN9ANYza7lk/m/mJT2PARI6_gJ
>>>>>
>>>>> How's that syndicate going?
>>>>
>>>> Could be wrong, but I don't think that it ever kicked off. Good of you to
>>>> remind me of the Golden Age of usenet though. We (the QCCCC) used to go out
>>>> for drinks at various seedy Briz CBD drinking spots. Lotta larfs.
>>>>
>>>> Anyhoo Gumps, an apology for that defamation please.
>>>>
>>> You're out of your mind. When I cop as much shit as I do from you and
>>> your mates, there's no way I'm going to apologize.
>>
>> So you won't retract a defamatory statement you made about me because other
>> people put shit on you. That's a novel defence Gumps.
>
> You put shit on me all the time you buffoon. BTW How do you defame
> someone who doesn't actually exist. You're just a sock. No one here
> knows who the hell you are but you sure as shit throw enough crap around
> to have people think you are full of your own importance.

You have a badly distorted lens Gumps. Irrepairably I suspect.
And if I was "full of my own importance" then I'd be regaling you with
tales of my mighty achievements and glorious past. [Note: Where "tales" &
"achievements" are not necessarily true].

But speaking of "full of your own importance"!

“No I'm just here to annoy the crap out of you! Mainly because you're the
biggest troll I've seen on the net ever. I've beaten better one's than
you though.” Gumps, 26Oct18

“True to form you don't have the intellect for an intelligent debate.”
Gumps, 14apr18

“Noddy abused you from the word go because you deserved it. You're a
prententious wanker with tickets on yourself.” Gumps, 06Oct19

“Perhaps it's time you grew up.” Gumps, 03Oct19

“Unlike you, I have no need to tell lies to try and win an argument”, Gump,
21Jan18
“I guess I could ask Ant about uncle alvey and his gambling problems.”
Gumps, 10Jul17

“you can also stump up an apology for besmirching my reputation.” Gumps,
21Jan18

Not a pretty picture eh Gumps?

cheerio!

alvey

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

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 18:49:34 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:

> On 2/02/2022 6:25 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 6:52 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Go right ahead. It will only confirm my opinion that there's more than
>>> a few sheep running loose in the top paddock.
>>
>> How odd! That was almost exactly the opinion I had formed of you. I was
>> thinking kangas bouncing around though for you sure are rattled lately.
>
> Not in your wildest dreams xeno. You have no credibility with me so
> therefore I take what you say with a grain of salt. Your Napoleonic
> complex is outstanding.

Oops! Couple of errors here Gumps.

1. It's "Napoleon Complex", not "Napoleonic".
2. Nappo was actually taller than the average Frenchman of his day.
3. If you read up on the Napoleon Complex you'd realise that if anyone in
this place suffers from it then it's that poor victimised innocent in
Bumhole (Vic).

hth

alvey

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

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 02:00:18 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:

> On 3/02/2022 1:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 2/02/2022 10:09 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>> On 2/02/2022 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 2/02/2022 3:52 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>> On 2/02/2022 4:56 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:29:42 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 12:16 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:13:57 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 8:48 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:11:41 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:29:10 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lick lick. You're another who's balls are attached to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What? No response to Xeno Gumps? What say you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing. He's a nobody now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right. So no response from you then. There's a surprise.
>>>>>>>>>>> He's been offered an opportunity but as
>>>>>>>>>>> usual runs away faster and further than Forrest Gump.
>>>>>>>>>>> Basically he's not
>>>>>>>>>>> here to discuss cars, he's here to bully and harass much like
>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not a great choice of analogy there Gumps. Forrest ran *away*
>>>>>>>>>> from bullies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, the "opportunity" he was offered was a load of hugely
>>>>>>>>>> hypocritical
>>>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Btw, did you ever apologise to me for calling me a "problem
>>>>>>>>>> gambler"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No I must have forgotten...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/aus.sport.cricket/c/dN9ANYza7lk/m/mJT2PARI6_gJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How's that syndicate going?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could be wrong, but I don't think that it ever kicked off. Good
>>>>>>>> of you to
>>>>>>>> remind me of the Golden Age of usenet though. We (the QCCCC) used
>>>>>>>> to go out
>>>>>>>> for drinks at various seedy Briz CBD drinking spots. Lotta larfs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyhoo Gumps, an apology for that defamation please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're out of your mind. When I cop as much shit as I do from you and
>>>>>>> your mates, there's no way I'm going to apologize.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you won't retract a defamatory statement you made about me
>>>>>> because other
>>>>>> people put shit on you. That's a novel defence Gumps.
>>>>>
>>>>> You put shit on me all the time you buffoon. BTW How do you defame
>>>>> someone who doesn't actually exist.
>>>>
>>>> You know all my details and so does everyone else thanks to you
>>>> posting my personal details in this public forum without permission
>>>> for nefarious reasons *and* you then defamed me calling *me* a
>>>> "stalker".
>>>>
>>>> You even admitted that you went too far.
>>>>
>>>> A retraction and an apology will be fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   You're just a sock. No one here
>>>>> knows who the hell you are
>>>>
>>>> You know this how?
>>>>
>>>> but you sure as shit throw enough crap around
>>>>> to have people think you are full of your own importance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You throw shit sometimes it comes back at you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it's ok to declare that you're a child molesting, tax dodging
>>>>>> necrophiliac then because your heroic mate hurls abuse at me most
>>>>>> days?
>>>>>
>>>>> Go right ahead. It will only confirm my opinion that there's more
>>>>> than a few sheep running loose in the top paddock.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OIC but defaming someone as a "stalker" or another a "problem
>>>> gambler" is OK somehow?
>>>
>>> You're the victim when you have bullied, harassed and vilified me for
>>> years. Grow a brain idiot.
>>
>> Really? In that case I offer you a full retraction and unreserved
>> apology for every instance of bullying, harassment and vilification for
>> which you provide evidence of.
>
> Your bullying me with this intimidation and a conditional apology which
> is not worth the time it took you to type it out. This is the first
> example as you are claiming something that is not the case. I posted
> what you had already divulged in the forum and it was not for nefarious
> reasons. You had already posted the information. Granted it was some
> time ago. You have called me a stalker on several occasions and I
> strongly object to that. I'll accept an unreserved apology, nothing
> more, nothing less.

While "unreserved apologies" are in the air... "problem gambler" Gumps?

alvey

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

On 3/02/2022 1:09 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 2/02/2022 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:

>> OIC but defaming someone as a "stalker" or another a "problem gambler"
>> is OK somehow?
>
> You're the victim when you have bullied, harassed and vilified me for
> years. Grow a brain idiot.

He *loves* being a victim. It panders to his persecution complex.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:20:22 +1000, alvey wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:50:56 +1000, alvey wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:32:18 +1100, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/2/2022 12:53 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 2/02/2022 12:07 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2022 11:35 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/02/2022 8:45 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2022 9:24 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, I'm pretty sure as well :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notice the bullshit he has invented here? I never said *anything*
>>>>>>>> about not passing any "exams", and neither did I ever mention
>>>>>>>> missing the last 3 months of school. These are *his* insane
>>>>>>>> inventions. What *I* said was that I left school in the last few
>>>>>>>> weeks as I had been offered an apprenticeship and they wanted me to
>>>>>>>> start straight away. As to how long before the end of term I left I
>>>>>>>> couldn't accurately tell you as it was almost 45 years ago and I
>>>>>>>> don't remember. Could have been 5 weeks, and it could have been 2.
>>>>>>>> Either way, the school probably never noticed :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have a document here from the Education Department of Victoria
>>>>>>>> which is an Intermediate Technical Examination certificate dated
>>>>>>>> December 15th, 1977 showing me passing in 5 subjects, and I'm happy
>>>>>>>> to scan this certificate and post it to a hosting site and make the
>>>>>>>> link to it available here in exchange for Clasener's guarantee that
>>>>>>>> he admit that everything he has ever claimed about my secondary
>>>>>>>> school record has been nothing but a complete falsehood, that he
>>>>>>>> intentionally fabricated his claims for no reason other than to
>>>>>>>> attempt to pad out his bullshit claim that my education standard
>>>>>>>> was insufficient for me to have qualified for an apprenticeship.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Over to you, Kryppy. The ball's in your court now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just post your trade qualification numbers Darren. They are the only
>>>>>>> thing that absolutely cannot be faked. Those numbers can also be
>>>>>>> *independently verified* with no restrictions. Keeps frauds under
>>>>>>> control, you see. What's more, the numbers also include encoded
>>>>>>> details of the person concerned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, no deals. your claims, you get to prove them. It's what you
>>>>>>> impressed upon other, follow your own rules!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course you couldn't take the deal xeno. It was to be expected
>>>>>> because you know that if was qualified enough to undertake an
>>>>>> apprenticeship your whole argument loses value. You then are in an
>>>>>> extremely precarious
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. Darren claimed he was an AME(engines) apprentice. Even if he
>>>>> had year 9 passes in *10* subjects, he *still* couldn't enter into
>>>>> *any* AME apprenticeship because the entry level to any and all AME
>>>>> apprenticeship is and always has been year 10 passes in *specific
>>>>> subjects*. It is at year 10 level because it is a technician level
>>>>> apprenticeship. The first 3 years of study are at Cert 3, the 4th year
>>>>> at TAFE brings it up to Cert 4 level. My L-AME friend Graeme is on
>>>>> LinkedIn, go and put the question to him - I did. He is a
>>>>> L-AME(engines), L-AME(electrical) and L-AME(airframe). The L in the
>>>>> name means *Licenced*. He is licenced to work on *turbines*, the
>>>>> engine types Qantas had when he did his AME apprenticeship with them
>>>>> back about the same time I did my apprenticeship as a motor mechanic.
>>>>> As for the claim to the other two apprenticeships Darren claims to
>>>>> have done, well he could not have done them until the laws were
>>>>> *repealed* in 1992. Go look them up. You will find them in a link
>>>>> inadvertently provided by Daryl. In that same link is the *proof* that
>>>>> the AME apprenticeship requires 4 years attendance at TAFE (1280
>>>>> hours). Of course, there is the fact that neither the trade
>>>>> qualifications database nor the archives at PROV contain *any*
>>>>> reference to Darren Thomas Gibbens having even been signed up to any
>>>>> apprenticeship ever nor having been issued with any trade registration
>>>>> numbers. *You* can verify this yourself at PROV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now run along now and crawl back under your rock.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that's good advice. he only pops up to throw shit
>>>>
>>> The odd thing is, it was Darren himself who said he skipped the last
>>> three months of year 9. It was only when I pointed it out to him that
>>> would invalidate him from sitting the exam that he tried to claim he sat
>>> the exam anyway. What he didn't realise that passing, or even being
>>> *eligble* to sit, an exam requires attendance above a set percentage. 3
>>> months out, forget it, you're done. I have consistently made the 3 month
>>> claim, after he mentioned it, and *now* is the first time he says he
>>> attended classes right up to the exam. The smell of bullshit is strong
>>> in this one!
>>
>> Ooh oh!
>>
>> "I left school before the end of year nine because I'd been *offered* the
>> job I actually wanted and apparently that's a "fail"." Fraudster, 02Dec19
>>
>> "I left school early because I was offered my job on the strength of my
>> work experience performance, but I'm the failure and he isn't." 08Oct19
>>
>> "As I've said I went to the end of third form, or about 6 weeks short of it
>> as I'd been given an apprenticeship and I didn't see much point in hanging
>> around for the last few weeks of school when I *already* had the job I
>> wanted. My birthday's in January, and I left school a couple of months
>> before turning 15." 06Jul19
>>
>> Hmmm. Nothing about taking exams, and in Qld Yr 9 exams were well within 6
>> weeks prior to end of year.
>>
>> alvey
>
> Nothing from the Enablers. That's odd.

*Still* nothing. How weird.

alvey

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

On 3/02/2022 3:55 am, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> On 3/02/2022 2:38 am, Clocky wrote:

>> A full retraction and an unreserved apology please.
>>
>>
> No chance. You're not accepting that your own behavior is unacceptable
> so don't expect someone to apologize when you are bullying them into
> admitting to doing something they didn't do.
>
> I will accept an unconditional apology for you behaving the way you
> have. Not a half smart and bullying type apology that doesn't accept
> that your behavior has been abominable.

So it's retraction and apology time, is it?

Okay then Jerky. I'll have an apology for you taking my Facebook photo
and using it for your own amusement without asking permission to do so.
I mean, we all know how much of a coma you'd go into if someone did that
to you, right?

And while we're at it, I'll have an apology and retraction for every
accusation you've ever made about me that hasn't been substantiated with
any credible evidence, which incidentally is *every* accusation you've
ever made about me.

Want to start? Once you're done we can all sit around in a circle
holding hands and sing Kumbayah.

Fucking *idiot*......

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:32:34 +1000, keithr0 wrote:

> On 1/02/2022 5:48 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:

>>
>> your contributions to this newsgrope are truly outstanding! shirley you
>> must have studied long and hard to achieve such excellence!
>>
> It's all that the post deserved. Btw "shirley" is alveys signature

Nope. Wrong again keith. Shirley you've seen 'Flying High' (aka
'Airplane!') in the 40 odd years its been out?

alvey

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

On 3/02/2022 7:14 am, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:32:34 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 1/02/2022 5:48 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>>>
>>> your contributions to this newsgrope are truly outstanding! shirley you
>>> must have studied long and hard to achieve such excellence!
>>>
>> It's all that the post deserved. Btw "shirley" is alveys signature
>
> Nope. Wrong again keith. Shirley you've seen 'Flying High' (aka
> 'Airplane!') in the 40 odd years its been out?

I was talking about this context alvey, even you should be able to
comprehend that. felix is just aping his hero.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 07:24:34 +1000, keithr0 wrote:

> On 3/02/2022 7:14 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:32:34 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/02/2022 5:48 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> your contributions to this newsgrope are truly outstanding! shirley you
>>>> must have studied long and hard to achieve such excellence!
>>>>
>>> It's all that the post deserved. Btw "shirley" is alveys signature
>>
>> Nope. Wrong again keith. Shirley you've seen 'Flying High' (aka
>> 'Airplane!') in the 40 odd years its been out?
>
> I was talking about this context alvey,

Sorry. But I do have trouble following you.

> even you should be able to comprehend that.

Perhaps you should be clearer when you write?

> felix is just aping his hero.

Or he could be sharing a catchphrase, as people do, from a much loved
movie. You just don't know.

hth

alvey

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

On 3/02/2022 2:11 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 2/02/2022 10:09 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>> On 2/02/2022 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 2/02/2022 3:52 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>> On 2/02/2022 4:56 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:29:42 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 12:16 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:13:57 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 8:48 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:11:41 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:29:10 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lick lick. You're another who's balls are attached to
>>>>>>>>>>>> another man.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What? No response to Xeno Gumps? What say you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing. He's a nobody now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right. So no response from you then. There's a surprise.
>>>>>>>>>> He's been offered an opportunity but as
>>>>>>>>>> usual runs away faster and further than Forrest Gump.
>>>>>>>>>> Basically he's not
>>>>>>>>>> here to discuss cars, he's here to bully and harass much like
>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not a great choice of analogy there Gumps. Forrest ran *away*
>>>>>>>>> from bullies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, the "opportunity" he was offered was a load of hugely
>>>>>>>>> hypocritical
>>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Btw, did you ever apologise to me for calling me a "problem
>>>>>>>>> gambler"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No I must have forgotten...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/aus.sport.cricket/c/dN9ANYza7lk/m/mJT2PARI6_gJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How's that syndicate going?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could be wrong, but I don't think that it ever kicked off. Good
>>>>>>> of you to
>>>>>>> remind me of the Golden Age of usenet though. We (the QCCCC)
>>>>>>> used to go out
>>>>>>> for drinks at various seedy Briz CBD drinking spots. Lotta larfs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyhoo Gumps, an apology for that defamation please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're out of your mind. When I cop as much shit as I do from you
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> your mates, there's no way I'm going to apologize.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you won't retract a defamatory statement you made about me
>>>>> because other
>>>>> people put shit on you. That's a novel defence Gumps.
>>>>
>>>> You put shit on me all the time you buffoon. BTW How do you defame
>>>> someone who doesn't actually exist.
>>>
>>> You know all my details and so does everyone else thanks to you
>>> posting my personal details in this public forum without permission
>>> for nefarious reasons *and* you then defamed me calling *me* a
>>> "stalker".
>>>
>>> You even admitted that you went too far.
>>>
>>> A retraction and an apology will be fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   You're just a sock. No one here
>>>> knows who the hell you are
>>>
>>> You know this how?
>>>
>>> but you sure as shit throw enough crap around
>>>> to have people think you are full of your own importance.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You throw shit sometimes it comes back at you.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it's ok to declare that you're a child molesting, tax dodging
>>>>> necrophiliac then because your heroic mate hurls abuse at me most
>>>>> days?
>>>>
>>>> Go right ahead. It will only confirm my opinion that there's more
>>>> than a few sheep running loose in the top paddock.
>>>
>>>
>>> OIC but defaming someone as a "stalker" or another a "problem
>>> gambler" is OK somehow?
>>
>> You're the victim when you have bullied, harassed and vilified me for
>> years. Grow a brain idiot.
>
> Really? In that case I offer you a full retraction and unreserved
> apology for every instance of bullying, harassment and vilification
> for which you provide evidence of.
>
> However you know all my details and so does everyone else thanks to
> you posting my personal details in this public forum without
> permission for nefarious reasons *and* you then publicly defamed me by
> calling me a "stalker".
>
> You even admitted that you went too far.
>
> A full retraction and an unreserved apology will be fine.
>

don't hold yer breath Clocky..

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"my own words are irrelevant"
-noddy 5/08/2017 4:12 PM

On 3/02/2022 3:25 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 2/02/2022 3:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 2/02/2022 10:52 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 2/02/2022 6:57 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:34:55 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I just think that you are rather a sad little person who is so
>>>>> ashamed
>>>>> of what he has achieved in life that he doesn't want to talk about
>>>>> it.
>>>> There's another trait you have in common with The Fraudster keith.
>>>> Neither
>>>> of you could reach a correct conclusion if you had your own GPS
>>>> satellite
>>>> network, a team of top tracker dogs and Bear Grylls as a guide. I'd
>>>> opine
>>>> the problem is that you're blinded by ego.
>>>>
>>>
>>> interesting to note..
>>>
>>> 1. when attempting to denigrate his fellow humans he invariably uses
>>> the adjectival term 'little'. this is an attempt at intimidation
>>> intended to make the addressee feel insignificant and inferior.
>>> (keefy considers himself superior to others). this is his obvious
>>> intent, as he has no idea about the physical characteristics of his
>>> intended victim. they may in fact be 6'4'' and 150 kilos.- not
>>> someone any sensible person would describe as little.
>>
>> You can be 6'4" and still be insignificant.
>>
>>> 2. apart from being 'little' I am supposedly 'sad', and I have to
>>> wonder what the basis or evidence for that conclusion is?  I'd opine
>>> it's just said as an attempt to reinforce the intended belittling
>>> effect of 'little' as described above.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2. he suggests something rather curios- that someone would be
>>> ashamed of their achievements. isn't an achievement by it's very
>>> nature something to be proud of? why would someone be ashamed of an
>>> achievement? perhaps a remorseful Mafia Don could be, if such an
>>> animal could or would ever exist, and successful criminal activity
>>> could be described as achievement, but no keefy, sorry to disappoint
>>> you (well, not really sorry) I am not ashamed of any of my
>>> achievements in life. but perhaps you may wonder- would I have liked
>>> to have achieved more? sure, but I'm certain I'm not Robinson Caruso
>>> in that. however, my life is not yet over, so who knows what I may
>>> still achieve? but should there be anything of significance, it
>>> would be for me to know, and you not.
>>
>> Since you refuse to even mention them, there are really only two
>> possible options either you don't have any or that they are so
>> insignificant that you feel ashamed.
>>
>
> Or they are none of anyone else's business here - which would be the
> logical conclusion.  Achievements are subjective and personal anyway.
> One person might count 50 years at the same company doing 12 hour
> shifts 6 days a week for a cheap clock and a handshake as an
> achievement whilst another might count their retirement at age 34 to
> go traveling, fishing and surfing as theirs.
>
> What business is it of yours and who the fuck are you to judge what
> someone counts as an achievement?

he's a legend in his own mind..

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"my own words are irrelevant"
-noddy 5/08/2017 4:12 PM

On 3/02/2022 8:01 am, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 18:49:34 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>
>> On 2/02/2022 6:25 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 6:52 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>> Go right ahead. It will only confirm my opinion that there's more than
>>>> a few sheep running loose in the top paddock.
>>> How odd! That was almost exactly the opinion I had formed of you. I was
>>> thinking kangas bouncing around though for you sure are rattled lately.
>> Not in your wildest dreams xeno. You have no credibility with me so
>> therefore I take what you say with a grain of salt. Your Napoleonic
>> complex is outstanding.
> Oops! Couple of errors here Gumps.
>
> 1. It's "Napoleon Complex", not "Napoleonic".
> 2. Nappo was actually taller than the average Frenchman of his day.

yes, and quite handsome too. Josephine however had bad teeth! I've
actually seen many of his personal items. there was an exhibition in
Australia some time ago.

> 3. If you read up on the Napoleon Complex you'd realise that if anyone in
> this place suffers from it then it's that poor victimised innocent in
> Bumhole (Vic).
>
> hth
>
>
> alvey
>

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"my own words are irrelevant"
-noddy 5/08/2017 4:12 PM

On 3/02/2022 7:06 am, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:12:23 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>
>> Since you refuse to even mention them, there are really only two
>> possible options either you don't have any or that they are so
>> insignificant that you feel ashamed.
> Again, that's a very good Fraudster impersonation keith. He also routinely
> brays that, "The only possibilities are...", when in fact, they aren't.
> They're the only possibilities that suit his/your narrative.
>
> In this case, there's also the possibility that, again, unlike you and Der
> Der, felix isn't comfortable talking about himself.
> Then there's the possibility he sees zero relevance to his achievments and
> knowing how to pull an engine apart.
> Then there's the possibility that he believes there are some serious
> nutters in this group so releasing any personal details is a bad idea.

yes to all that! reason and logic are not keefy's forte.. along with
other things

>
> And there's a few other "possibilities" that I won't waste time on as you
> should get the drift by now.

I worked for ASIO? I'm an illegal alien? I'm a hitman for hire? so many
possibilities, so little time..

>
>
> HTH

it's quite possible keefy is beyond help..

>
>
> alvey
>

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"my own words are irrelevant"
-noddy 5/08/2017 4:12 PM

On 3/02/2022 8:14 am, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:32:34 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 1/02/2022 5:48 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> your contributions to this newsgrope are truly outstanding! shirley you
>>> must have studied long and hard to achieve such excellence!
>>>
>> It's all that the post deserved. Btw "shirley" is alveys signature
> Nope. Wrong again keith. Shirley you've seen 'Flying High' (aka
> 'Airplane!') in the 40 odd years its been out?
>

poor old keefy never gets anything right

>
> alvey
>

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"my own words are irrelevant"
-noddy 5/08/2017 4:12 PM

On 2/02/2022 8:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 2/02/2022 6:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 1/02/2022 6:49 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>>> as I've told you several times already, I don't care what you think.
>>> It's only your ego that makes you think I would. like.. "omg, keefy
>>> doesn't think much of me. maybe I should jump off the Westgate
>>> bridge". and the bottom line.. what business is my life of yours
>>> anyway? answer: it's none of your business. no one needs to lay their
>>> life bare just to post on a newsgroup. I used to think you were
>>> erudite and intelligent. now I just think you're a dickhead, because
>>> there's ample evidence to support the view.
>>>
>>>
>> So what is it about your life that makes you so ashamed that you don't
>> want to mention it?
>
> Keith, you know by continually hounding Felix in this way you're making
> yourself look just as batshit crazy as the people you criticise for
> doing it, right?
>
> If Felix doesn't want to say, he doesn't have to. Who gives a shit?
>
He is an annoying little hypocrite who demands from others what he isn't
prepared to provide himself. Same goes for alvey, even more so.

On 3/02/2022 7:32 am, alvey wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 07:24:34 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 3/02/2022 7:14 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:32:34 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/02/2022 5:48 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> your contributions to this newsgrope are truly outstanding! shirley you
>>>>> must have studied long and hard to achieve such excellence!
>>>>>
>>>> It's all that the post deserved. Btw "shirley" is alveys signature
>>>
>>> Nope. Wrong again keith. Shirley you've seen 'Flying High' (aka
>>> 'Airplane!') in the 40 odd years its been out?
>>
>> I was talking about this context alvey,
>
> Sorry. But I do have trouble following you.

Maybe you are as clever as you think you are then.

>> even you should be able to comprehend that.
>
> Perhaps you should be clearer when you write?
>
>> felix is just aping his hero.
>
> Or he could be sharing a catchphrase, as people do, from a much loved
> movie. You just don't know.
>
>
> hth
>
>
> alvey
>

On 3/02/2022 8:24 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 3/02/2022 7:14 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:32:34 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/02/2022 5:48 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> your contributions to this newsgrope are truly outstanding! shirley
>>>> you
>>>> must have studied long and hard to achieve such excellence!
>>>>
>>> It's all that the post deserved. Btw "shirley" is alveys signature
>>
>> Nope. Wrong again keith. Shirley you've seen 'Flying High' (aka
>> 'Airplane!') in the 40 odd years its been out?
>
> I was talking about this context alvey, even you should be able to
> comprehend that. felix is just aping his hero.

wrong again keefy. I've used it many times in the past, and not only here.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"my own words are irrelevant"
-noddy 5/08/2017 4:12 PM

On 3/02/2022 9:29 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 2/02/2022 8:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 2/02/2022 6:06 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 1/02/2022 6:49 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>
>>>> as I've told you several times already, I don't care what you
>>>> think. It's only your ego that makes you think I would. like..
>>>> "omg, keefy doesn't think much of me. maybe I should jump off the
>>>> Westgate bridge". and the bottom line.. what business is my life of
>>>> yours anyway? answer: it's none of your business. no one needs to
>>>> lay their life bare just to post on a newsgroup. I used to think
>>>> you were erudite and intelligent. now I just think you're a
>>>> dickhead, because there's ample evidence to support the view.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So what is it about your life that makes you so ashamed that you
>>> don't want to mention it?
>>
>> Keith, you know by continually hounding Felix in this way you're
>> making yourself look just as batshit crazy as the people you
>> criticise for doing it, right?
>>
>> If Felix doesn't want to say, he doesn't have to. Who gives a shit?
>>
> He is an annoying little

there's the adjectival little again..

> hypocrite who demands from others what he isn't prepared to provide
> himself.

do I? such as?

> Same goes for alvey, even more so.
>

oh! I want to be number one!  :(

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"my own words are irrelevant"
-noddy 5/08/2017 4:12 PM

On 3/02/2022 9:31 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 3/02/2022 7:32 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 07:24:34 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/02/2022 7:14 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:32:34 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/02/2022 5:48 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your contributions to this newsgrope are truly outstanding!
>>>>>> shirley you
>>>>>> must have studied long and hard to achieve such excellence!
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's all that the post deserved. Btw "shirley" is alveys signature
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Wrong again keith. Shirley you've seen 'Flying High' (aka
>>>> 'Airplane!') in the 40 odd years its been out?
>>>
>>> I was talking about this context alvey,
>>
>> Sorry. But I do have trouble following you.
>
> Maybe you are as clever as you think you are then.

yes, I think he is

>
>>> even you should be able to comprehend that.
>>
>> Perhaps you should be clearer when you write?
>>
>>> felix is just aping his hero.
>>
>> Or he could be sharing a catchphrase, as people do, from a much loved
>> movie. You just don't know.
>>
>>

he hasn't seen it? shirley not!

>> hth
>>
>>
>> alvey
>>
>

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"my own words are irrelevant"
-noddy 5/08/2017 4:12 PM

On 3/02/2022 6:38 am, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:52:51 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>
>> On 2/02/2022 4:56 pm, alvey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:29:42 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/02/2022 12:16 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:13:57 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 8:48 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:11:41 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:29:10 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lick lick. You're another who's balls are attached to another man.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What? No response to Xeno Gumps? What say you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing. He's a nobody now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. So no response from you then. There's a surprise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He's been offered an opportunity but as
>>>>>>>> usual runs away faster and further than Forrest Gump. Basically he's not
>>>>>>>> here to discuss cars, he's here to bully and harass much like you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not a great choice of analogy there Gumps. Forrest ran *away* from bullies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, the "opportunity" he was offered was a load of hugely hypocritical
>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Btw, did you ever apologise to me for calling me a "problem gambler"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I must have forgotten...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/aus.sport.cricket/c/dN9ANYza7lk/m/mJT2PARI6_gJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How's that syndicate going?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could be wrong, but I don't think that it ever kicked off. Good of you to
>>>>> remind me of the Golden Age of usenet though. We (the QCCCC) used to go out
>>>>> for drinks at various seedy Briz CBD drinking spots. Lotta larfs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyhoo Gumps, an apology for that defamation please.
>>>>>
>>>> You're out of your mind. When I cop as much shit as I do from you and
>>>> your mates, there's no way I'm going to apologize.
>>>
>>> So you won't retract a defamatory statement you made about me because other
>>> people put shit on you. That's a novel defence Gumps.
>>
>> You put shit on me all the time you buffoon. BTW How do you defame
>> someone who doesn't actually exist. You're just a sock. No one here
>> knows who the hell you are but you sure as shit throw enough crap around
>> to have people think you are full of your own importance.
>
> You have a badly distorted lens Gumps. Irrepairably I suspect.
>
> And if I was "full of my own importance" then I'd be regaling you with
> tales of my mighty achievements and glorious past. [Note: Where "tales" &
> "achievements" are not necessarily true].
>
> But speaking of "full of your own importance"!
>
> “No I'm just here to annoy the crap out of you! Mainly because you're the
> biggest troll I've seen on the net ever. I've beaten better one's than
> you though.” Gumps, 26Oct18
>
> “True to form you don't have the intellect for an intelligent debate.”
> Gumps, 14apr18
>
> “Noddy abused you from the word go because you deserved it. You're a
> prententious wanker with tickets on yourself.” Gumps, 06Oct19
>
> “Perhaps it's time you grew up.” Gumps, 03Oct19
>
> “Unlike you, I have no need to tell lies to try and win an argument”, Gump,
> 21Jan18
> “I guess I could ask Ant about uncle alvey and his gambling problems.”
> Gumps, 10Jul17
>
> “you can also stump up an apology for besmirching my reputation.” Gumps,
> 21Jan18
>
> Not a pretty picture eh Gumps?
>
No you're not a pretty picture. A dirty, smelly, holey old sock is what
you are.

On 3/02/2022 7:04 am, alvey wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 02:00:18 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>
>> On 3/02/2022 1:11 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 2/02/2022 10:09 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>> On 2/02/2022 10:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 2/02/2022 3:52 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 4:56 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:29:42 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 12:16 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:13:57 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 8:48 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:11:41 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2022 6:27 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:29:10 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lick lick. You're another who's balls are attached to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What? No response to Xeno Gumps? What say you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing. He's a nobody now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right. So no response from you then. There's a surprise.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He's been offered an opportunity but as
>>>>>>>>>>>> usual runs away faster and further than Forrest Gump.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically he's not
>>>>>>>>>>>> here to discuss cars, he's here to bully and harass much like
>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not a great choice of analogy there Gumps. Forrest ran *away*
>>>>>>>>>>> from bullies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, the "opportunity" he was offered was a load of hugely
>>>>>>>>>>> hypocritical
>>>>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, did you ever apologise to me for calling me a "problem
>>>>>>>>>>> gambler"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No I must have forgotten...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/aus.sport.cricket/c/dN9ANYza7lk/m/mJT2PARI6_gJ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How's that syndicate going?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could be wrong, but I don't think that it ever kicked off. Good
>>>>>>>>> of you to
>>>>>>>>> remind me of the Golden Age of usenet though. We (the QCCCC) used
>>>>>>>>> to go out
>>>>>>>>> for drinks at various seedy Briz CBD drinking spots. Lotta larfs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyhoo Gumps, an apology for that defamation please.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're out of your mind. When I cop as much shit as I do from you and
>>>>>>>> your mates, there's no way I'm going to apologize.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you won't retract a defamatory statement you made about me
>>>>>>> because other
>>>>>>> people put shit on you. That's a novel defence Gumps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You put shit on me all the time you buffoon. BTW How do you defame
>>>>>> someone who doesn't actually exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know all my details and so does everyone else thanks to you
>>>>> posting my personal details in this public forum without permission
>>>>> for nefarious reasons *and* you then defamed me calling *me* a
>>>>> "stalker".
>>>>>
>>>>> You even admitted that you went too far.
>>>>>
>>>>> A retraction and an apology will be fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   You're just a sock. No one here
>>>>>> knows who the hell you are
>>>>>
>>>>> You know this how?
>>>>>
>>>>> but you sure as shit throw enough crap around
>>>>>> to have people think you are full of your own importance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You throw shit sometimes it comes back at you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it's ok to declare that you're a child molesting, tax dodging
>>>>>>> necrophiliac then because your heroic mate hurls abuse at me most
>>>>>>> days?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go right ahead. It will only confirm my opinion that there's more
>>>>>> than a few sheep running loose in the top paddock.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OIC but defaming someone as a "stalker" or another a "problem
>>>>> gambler" is OK somehow?
>>>>
>>>> You're the victim when you have bullied, harassed and vilified me for
>>>> years. Grow a brain idiot.
>>>
>>> Really? In that case I offer you a full retraction and unreserved
>>> apology for every instance of bullying, harassment and vilification for
>>> which you provide evidence of.
>>
>> Your bullying me with this intimidation and a conditional apology which
>> is not worth the time it took you to type it out. This is the first
>> example as you are claiming something that is not the case. I posted
>> what you had already divulged in the forum and it was not for nefarious
>> reasons. You had already posted the information. Granted it was some
>> time ago. You have called me a stalker on several occasions and I
>> strongly object to that. I'll accept an unreserved apology, nothing
>> more, nothing less.
>
> While "unreserved apologies" are in the air... "problem gambler" Gumps?

But you're just a dirty smelly holey old sock. You're not a real person.