"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0h2auipec3s2p8hv6fg5qduoc3kfueuq2v@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:50:42 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>news:hchmtipmkidgihts045mfsli5asm37ats3@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:07:26 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>
>>> Klaus is leaving? Since you replied to him, you must think he's
>>> leaving. Or you've been caught in another lie.
>>
>>No, I never thought that or said that at all.
>
> Yes, liar, you certainly did.
>
>>
>>I was obviously replying to YOU
>
> You were obviously replying to me.

I was replying to your message, yes, but I obciously was speacking to
kwills.

"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5m2auilk6gg4dekom8ok4sb7i7l8usgpl6@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:48:12 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:qvuotid63r5e007h8p2a64bdnm071mhl09@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 22:48:32 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Note that it does NOT say I had a strawberry Frosty, making YOU the
>>>>> liar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>FUCK YOU klous, you know damn well that a frosty is wendy's version of a
>>>>shake, therefore since we were discussing FROSTY'S and you used to the
>>>>term
>>>>shake, means that you MEANT frosty. Besides, there is ANOTHER post
>>>>where
>>>>you admitted having a FROSTY.
>>>>
>>>>news:n12ati5vttromqr0ji4ramh2fp7f1m2oqg@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com
>>>>
>>>>You said, QOUTE:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Who ordered the frosty for you, or, if
>>>>>>>>the strawberry Frosty wasn't ordered,
>>>>>>>>how was it that it came to be in your
>>>>>>>>possession.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it is relevant.
>>>>
>>>>>No. When I had it, and who bought it, is irrelevant
>>>
>>> And it still is.
>>
>>IOW, irrelevant = "proves klous was wrong"
>
> ir�rel�e�vant: not connected with or relevant to something.
> "an irrelevant comment"
>>
>> Which STILL leaves us with the ORIGINAL question, did you or did you not
>>ACTUALLY HAVE a Wendy's strawberry frosty.
>
> It's not revelant.

Why the hell not? (becouse it would prove klous wrong)

"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vc2aui97ubidmjdt53sa3gbad9qf7cv7ck@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:41:41 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"K Wills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>news:64hbtihludrc4ve1m5pq9usslns829bso9@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:23:28 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>you don't need a court to take an oath, kwills.
>>>
>>> Only an officer of the court can place someone under oath.
>>
>>In a court of law, that is is correct.
>>
>>But this is not a court of law, this is USENET NEWSGROUP.
>>
>
> Thanks for admitting that nobody can place anyone under any kind of
> oath in alt.f.f-f.

I never said that. Anyone can place themself or someone else under any
oath in any place. For it to be LEGALLY binding must be in a court.

"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
news:3k8buip3l5k58fg58ckb0q93qovfhku3fj@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:50:42 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>I was obviously replying to YOU where klous very stupidly forgot to
>>re-translate YOUR text after he was so careful to translate his own reply.
>>bwahahahahaahaha
>
> What does that have to do with your claim that Klaus and I are
> the same person (the only way you could think we were both leaving)?

I never claimed that you and klous are the same person.

I never claimed that you were both leaving.

Get your head out of your ass.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:08:14 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:vc2aui97ubidmjdt53sa3gbad9qf7cv7ck@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:41:41 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"K Wills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>news:64hbtihludrc4ve1m5pq9usslns829bso9@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:23:28 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>you don't need a court to take an oath, kwills.
>>>>
>>>> Only an officer of the court can place someone under oath.
>>>
>>>In a court of law, that is is correct.
>>>
>>>But this is not a court of law, this is USENET NEWSGROUP.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for admitting that nobody can place anyone under any kind of
>> oath in alt.f.f-f.
>
>I never said that.

Yes you did, liar.

:Just yes or no, UNDER OATH, have to had one
:yourself.

You wanted me to put myself under oath.

>Anyone can place themself or someone else under any
>oath in any place. For it to be LEGALLY binding must be in a court.

So then why did you ask?

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:08:45 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0h2auipec3s2p8hv6fg5qduoc3kfueuq2v@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:50:42 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>news:hchmtipmkidgihts045mfsli5asm37ats3@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:07:26 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>
>>>> Klaus is leaving? Since you replied to him, you must think he's
>>>> leaving. Or you've been caught in another lie.
>>>
>>>No, I never thought that or said that at all.
>>
>> Yes, liar, you certainly did.
>>
>>>
>>>I was obviously replying to YOU
>>
>> You were obviously replying to me.
>
>I was replying to your message, yes, but I obciously was speacking to
>kwills.
>

You weren't speaking. You were WRITING.

You replied to me.

Why not just admit you fucked up, you lied here and move on, Jenny?

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:09:28 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5m2auilk6gg4dekom8ok4sb7i7l8usgpl6@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:48:12 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:qvuotid63r5e007h8p2a64bdnm071mhl09@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 22:48:32 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that it does NOT say I had a strawberry Frosty, making YOU the
>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>FUCK YOU klous, you know damn well that a frosty is wendy's version of a
>>>>>shake, therefore since we were discussing FROSTY'S and you used to the
>>>>>term
>>>>>shake, means that you MEANT frosty. Besides, there is ANOTHER post
>>>>>where
>>>>>you admitted having a FROSTY.
>>>>>
>>>>>news:n12ati5vttromqr0ji4ramh2fp7f1m2oqg@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com
>>>>>
>>>>>You said, QOUTE:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Who ordered the frosty for you, or, if
>>>>>>>>>the strawberry Frosty wasn't ordered,
>>>>>>>>>how was it that it came to be in your
>>>>>>>>>possession.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, it is relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>>No. When I had it, and who bought it, is irrelevant
>>>>
>>>> And it still is.
>>>
>>>IOW, irrelevant = "proves klous was wrong"
>>
>> ir·rel·e·vant: not connected with or relevant to something.
>> "an irrelevant comment"
>>>
>>> Which STILL leaves us with the ORIGINAL question, did you or did you not
>>>ACTUALLY HAVE a Wendy's strawberry frosty.
>>
>> It's not revelant.
>
>Why the hell not? (becouse it would prove klous wrong)
>

Because it doesn't matter if I did or not.

How fucking stupid are you to not know what "irrelevant" means, Jenny?

I don't have to have a Wendy's Strawberry Frosty to know I won't like
it because I don't like strawberry-flavored drinks.

What part of your tiny, shriveled lizard brain can't understand this?

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:08:14 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:vc2aui97ubidmjdt53sa3gbad9qf7cv7ck@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:41:41 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"K Wills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>news:64hbtihludrc4ve1m5pq9usslns829bso9@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:23:28 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>you don't need a court to take an oath, kwills.
>>>>
>>>> Only an officer of the court can place someone under oath.
>>>
>>>In a court of law, that is is correct.
>>>
>>>But this is not a court of law, this is USENET NEWSGROUP.
>>
>> Thanks for admitting that nobody can place anyone under any kind of
>> oath in alt.f.f-f.
>
>I never said that. Anyone can place themself or someone else under any
>oath in any place. For it to be LEGALLY binding must be in a court.

You can LIE and claim you've placed someone under oath. And you
will certainly try.

[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]

--
A small number of the documented lies of Jerry "Jenny" Sauk.
http://jerrylies.byethost22.com/?i=2

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:08:45 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

I have adopted Jenny's posting standards for this reply. I'm certain
he will be pleased that I found his standards worthy of emulation.

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0h2auipec3s2p8hv6fg5qduoc3kfueuq2v@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:50:42 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>news:hchmtipmkidgihts045mfsli5asm37ats3@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:07:26 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>
>>>> Klaus is leaving? Since you replied to him, you must think he's
>>>> leaving. Or you've been caught in another lie.
>>>
>>>No, I never thought that or said that at all.
>>
>> Yes, liar, you certainly did.
>>
>>>I was obviously replying to YOU
>>
>> You were obviously replying to me.
>
>I was replying to your message, yes,

So you freely admit you replied to Klaus, meaning you claimed he
was the one leaving. Great.

[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]

--
A small number of the documented lies of Jerry "Jenny" Sauk.
http://jerrylies.byethost22.com/?i=2

On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 12:39:51 -0800, KlausSchadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:09:28 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:5m2auilk6gg4dekom8ok4sb7i7l8usgpl6@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:48:12 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>news:qvuotid63r5e007h8p2a64bdnm071mhl09@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 22:48:32 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that it does NOT say I had a strawberry Frosty, making YOU the
>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>FUCK YOU klous, you know damn well that a frosty is wendy's version of a
>>>>>>shake, therefore since we were discussing FROSTY'S and you used to the
>>>>>>term
>>>>>>shake, means that you MEANT frosty. Besides, there is ANOTHER post
>>>>>>where
>>>>>>you admitted having a FROSTY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>news:n12ati5vttromqr0ji4ramh2fp7f1m2oqg@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You said, QOUTE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Who ordered the frosty for you, or, if
>>>>>>>>>>the strawberry Frosty wasn't ordered,
>>>>>>>>>>how was it that it came to be in your
>>>>>>>>>>possession.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, it is relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No. When I had it, and who bought it, is irrelevant
>>>>>
>>>>> And it still is.
>>>>
>>>>IOW, irrelevant = "proves klous was wrong"
>>>
>>> ir·rel·e·vant: not connected with or relevant to something.
>>> "an irrelevant comment"
>>>>
>>>> Which STILL leaves us with the ORIGINAL question, did you or did you not
>>>>ACTUALLY HAVE a Wendy's strawberry frosty.
>>>
>>> It's not revelant.
>>
>>Why the hell not? (becouse it would prove klous wrong)
>
>Because it doesn't matter if I did or not.
>
>How fucking stupid are you to not know what "irrelevant" means, Jenny?
>
>I don't have to have a Wendy's Strawberry Frosty to know I won't like
>it because I don't like strawberry-flavored drinks.
>
>What part of your tiny, shriveled lizard brain can't understand this?

He understands. There is no possible way that he can't at this
point.

--
When the world ends, there'll be no more air.
That's why it's important to pollute the air now. Before it's too
late. :)

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:14:12 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

Post edit restored to the original at no additional cost.

>
>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>news:pf8bui18gp53b20qom0pm2pmuo041rgkro@4ax.com...
>> >On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 22:52:29 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Post edits restored to the original text and context.
>>
>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> Like, for instance, when you lied by claiming I said I had ordered a
>>>>>>> strawberry frosty and, when I asked for proof, you supplied a link
>>>>>>> PROVING YOU LIED!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was so funny. It made me laugh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Laugh laugh laugh laugh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now now, let's be fair -- to be a lie, there
>>>>>> has to be intent.
>>>>>
>>>>>Careful frank, or thier
>>>>
>>>> What is "thier?"
>>>> If you mean their, explain their what? What, exactly, is theirs?
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Jenny?
>>
>>

Jenny?

>>>>[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]
>>>>
>>>>>going to start calling you a liar also.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you propose there is a lie in Frank's post? There isn't
>>>>one, of course. You are simply feeding your NEED to lie.
>>
>>
>> Jenny?
>>
>>

Jenny?

>>>> Yes, you do have clear intent. This is PROVED by your refusal to
>>>>admit you're wrong when you are proved wrong. When absolute PROOF of
>>>>the truth is offered, you continue to make the false claim, proving
>>>>your intent to lie the whole time.
>>
>>
>> Jenny?
>>
>>

Jenny?

>>>> Your reader appears to have removed the following. Had you
>>>>snipped it, you would have pointed this out. Unless your intent was,
>>>>and is, to present the LIE that Frank posted nothing else. I restored
>>>>it so that you might address the remainder of Frank's post.
>>>>
>>>>-----Begin C&P-----
>>>>
>>>>Jerry apparently has a profound disability which prevents
>>>>him from differentiating between a shake and a
>>>>frosty -- so he is merely mistaken.
>>>>
>>>>Though, he did actually lie once, and then
>>>>admitted it. IIRC, it was some email
>>>>he claimed to have gotten from a 'froup denizen.
>>>>(I guess he forgot about that.)
>>>>
>>>>What I don't understand, though, is why he
>>>>turns "au" into "ou" in pretty much everything
>>>>he writes...except his own name. He should
>>>>change his name to "Souk" to be consistent,
>>>>don't you think?
>>>>
>>>>(Though then again, he did spell your name as "Kloaus"
>>>>in the subject, which could be an honest attempt
>>>>to at least _try_ to get it right. Funny about that.)
>>>>
>>>>-----End C&P-----
>>>>
>>>>[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]
>>>
>>> I never proposed that frank was lying, Kwills.
>>
>> You did. That you snipped it away when you replied (I restored
>> the original text) doesn't alter that you did make such a proposal.
>>
>>>You are simply feeding
>>>your NEED to accuse me of lying.
>>
>> In order for your claim of, "Careful frank, or thier [sic] going
>>to start calling you a liar also." there MUST be something you suggest
>>can be interpreted as a lie. Frank's erroneous position that you are
>>just profoundly stupid, so much so that you lack the intent to
>>deceive, can't be it. Unless you have something to point to that shows
>>he was less than honest in his claim.
>> If you have something, present it for review. If you're simply
>>furthering your NEED to lie, you will present only avoidance. If you
>>don't run away from the truth.

Note that Jenny ran away from the truth, admitting, by default, that
he lied.

>> I do like your use of projection. You NEED to lie and so to
>>dishonestly deflect from it, you claim I somehow NEED to accuse you of
>>lying. Anyone who reads our interactions will see I simply point out
>>your lying when you lie. If you feel I'm doing this too often, you may
>>find some benefit in being honest. But, as you keep proving, honesty
>>isn't an option for you, unless you make a mistake.
>>

Jenny?

>>[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]
>
>No I didn't. I never, not even once said, "Frank is lying."

No one claimed you said, or wrote, that. Why are you LYING about
this? And what does this lie of yours have to do with your failed use
of projection? I honestly do not see the connection.

>What I said
>was, BE CAREFUL FRANK, or they will ACCUSE you of lying.

Which means you propose he must have lied about something. There
can be no accusation without an action.
But you know this.

[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]

--
A small number of the documented lies of Jerry "Jenny" Sauk.
http://jerrylies.byethost22.com/?i=2

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:16:06 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

Post edits restored to the original text at no additional charge.

>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>news:3k8buip3l5k58fg58ckb0q93qovfhku3fj@4ax.com...
>>On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:50:42 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Post edits restored to the original.
>>
>>
>>>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>news:hchmtipmkidgihts045mfsli5asm37ats3@4ax.com...
>>>>On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:07:26 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:9lqjti9nvl2g85gc94l4s729n0311echbu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 03:35:30 -0800, KWills <kw19@kw.kw> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:42:19 -0800, KlausSchadenfreude
>>>>>>><klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:01:02 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>>>>><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:892htilsmod4tjide0inqa6osern83m5bg@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> This should be good. Post the MID where Klaus actually stated he
>>>>>>>>>> tasted a strawberry frosty. Not implied it. But where, according to
>>>>>>>>>> you, he actually said he had.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [Crickets]
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>Note I'm still waiting for the MID. Since Jenny claim was, and is, a
>>lie, he's run away from the truth he HATES so much.
>>
>>

And I'm still waiting.

>>>>>>>>>Alright, here you go.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>news:4vnmsilrg7pgl7amsqge1raaccdglfvt6c@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In that message, klous says, QOUTE:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Obviously, I have HAD a strawberry shake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Note that it does NOT say I had a strawberry Frosty, making YOU the
>>>>>>>>liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't want to accept that Jenny's so stupid he doesn't know the
>>>>>>>difference between a shake and a frosty.
>>>>>>> Maybe he'll focus on the similarities. Like, both are dairy
>>>>>>>based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's hard to accept. It's easier to accept that he's simply lying, as
>>>>>> usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>See, that's the difference between klous and me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's right. You constantly lie, while I give only facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I demand klous to
>>>>>>>>>answer a question, he responds with silence or "Irrelevant" and he
>>>>>>>>>refues to
>>>>>>>>>directly asnwer the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jenny WISHES I were silent and didn't point out his CONSTANT lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's taken to expressing how his lying being exposed is happening
>>>>>>>so often, he's finding it boring. The exposure, which he's proved he
>>>>>>>also needs, causes him to yawn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I on the hand, ALWAYS supply a direect response. Such as this one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>TRANSLATION: Jenny will usually ALWAYS lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Jenny is honest, it's by accident.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Additional, and not relevant to the post, I will be on vacation
>>>>>>>next week. I may post once or twice, but probably not. Proving *Wraal*
>>>>>>>the liar he is isn't that important to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unir n tbbq gevc naq or fnsr.
>>>>>
>>>>>that's great news, that certianly will help me to get cought up on the
>>>>
>>>> What is "cought?"
>>
>>
>>Jenny?
>>
>>

Jenny?

>>>>>backlog of message's here.
>>>>
>>>> You claimed there were only about 300 posts to get through. That
>>>>would take, at most, an afternoon. And you would need to read real
>>>>slow for it to take that long.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>Jenny?
>>
>>

Jenny?

>>>>>make sure you let me know when you post your
>>>>>last message to teh group before you leave,
>>>>
>>>> Klaus is leaving? Since you replied to him, you must think he's
>>>>leaving. Or you've been caught in another lie.
>>>> So, are you so delusional you think Klaus is also leaving, or
>>>>have you been caught in another lie? If you see a REALISTIC option I
>>>>don't, present it.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>Jenny?
>>
>>

Jenny?

>>>>>and also let us know the day you
>>>>>expect to return. I'll try to get cought up during that time.
>>>>
>>>> Again, what is "cought?"
>>>

Jenny?

>>>No, I never thought that or said that at all.
>>
>> That makes NO sense. You didn't answer the question I asked of
>>you.
>>

Jenny?

>>>I was obviously replying to YOU where klous very stupidly forgot to
>>>re-translate YOUR text after he was so careful to translate his own reply.
>>>bwahahahahaahaha
>>
>> What does that have to do with your claim that Klaus and I are
>>the same person (the only way you could think we were both leaving)?
>>Or has another example of your NEED to lie been PROVED by you?
>
>I never claimed that you and klous

Who is klous? I've asked this of you MANY times, and you've run
away to hide from the question every time. Every... Single... Time.
It's as if you're embraced about being called out on your LYING
about who you mean.

>are the same person.
>

While technically true, since no one name klous posts here, your
use of deception fails to address your claim that Klaus and I are the
same person.
Unless you honestly thought we would both be gone at the same
time. If that's the claim you wish to make now, you will have to
explain why you've been lying about the matter this whole time.

>I never claimed that you were both leaving.
>

Since klous seems to be a figment of your mental illness, your
claim is TECHNICALLY true. But not in the manner in which you present
it. You use the name as a means to further your NEED to lie.
Prove me wrong, if I am.

>Get your head out of your ass.

Think about men's asses a lot, do you? You do seem to have an odd
fixation on male anatomy and homosexuality. We can make a reasonable
guess as to why.

[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]

--
A small number of the documented lies of Jerry "Jenny" Sauk.
http://jerrylies.byethost22.com/?i=2

On Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:52:54 -0800, KWills <kw19@kw.kw> wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:08:45 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I have adopted Jenny's posting standards for this reply. I'm certain
>he will be pleased that I found his standards worthy of emulation.
>
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:0h2auipec3s2p8hv6fg5qduoc3kfueuq2v@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:50:42 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>>news:hchmtipmkidgihts045mfsli5asm37ats3@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:07:26 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>
>>>>> Klaus is leaving? Since you replied to him, you must think he's
>>>>> leaving. Or you've been caught in another lie.
>>>>
>>>>No, I never thought that or said that at all.
>>>
>>> Yes, liar, you certainly did.
>>>
>>>>I was obviously replying to YOU
>>>
>>> You were obviously replying to me.
>>
>>I was replying to your message, yes,
>
> So you freely admit you replied to Klaus, meaning you claimed he
>was the one leaving. Great.
>
>[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]

I'm glad we FINALLY got this settled! LOL

"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s9ccuilge669pfimievuqtstvfcdmfrc6a@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:09:28 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:5m2auilk6gg4dekom8ok4sb7i7l8usgpl6@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:48:12 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>news:qvuotid63r5e007h8p2a64bdnm071mhl09@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 22:48:32 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that it does NOT say I had a strawberry Frosty, making YOU the
>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>FUCK YOU klous, you know damn well that a frosty is wendy's version of
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>shake, therefore since we were discussing FROSTY'S and you used to the
>>>>>>term
>>>>>>shake, means that you MEANT frosty. Besides, there is ANOTHER post
>>>>>>where
>>>>>>you admitted having a FROSTY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>news:n12ati5vttromqr0ji4ramh2fp7f1m2oqg@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You said, QOUTE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Who ordered the frosty for you, or, if
>>>>>>>>>>the strawberry Frosty wasn't ordered,
>>>>>>>>>>how was it that it came to be in your
>>>>>>>>>>possession.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, it is relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No. When I had it, and who bought it, is irrelevant
>>>>>
>>>>> And it still is.
>>>>
>>>>IOW, irrelevant = "proves klous was wrong"
>>>
>>> ir�rel�e�vant: not connected with or relevant to something.
>>> "an irrelevant comment"
>>>>
>>>> Which STILL leaves us with the ORIGINAL question, did you or did you
>>>> not
>>>>ACTUALLY HAVE a Wendy's strawberry frosty.
>>>
>>> It's not revelant.
>>
>>Why the hell not? (becouse it would prove klous wrong)
>>
>
> Because it doesn't matter if I did or not.

If it doesn't matter, then why not just answer the question?

"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
news:handuilu22gg23fadrf8kmk0oclv85j03i@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:08:45 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have adopted Jenny's posting standards for this reply. I'm certain
> he will be pleased that I found his standards worthy of emulation.
>
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:0h2auipec3s2p8hv6fg5qduoc3kfueuq2v@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:50:42 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>>news:hchmtipmkidgihts045mfsli5asm37ats3@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:07:26 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>
>>>>> Klaus is leaving? Since you replied to him, you must think he's
>>>>> leaving. Or you've been caught in another lie.
>>>>
>>>>No, I never thought that or said that at all.
>>>
>>> Yes, liar, you certainly did.
>>>
>>>>I was obviously replying to YOU
>>>
>>> You were obviously replying to me.
>>
>>I was replying to your message, yes,
>
> So you freely admit you replied to Klaus, meaning you claimed he
> was the one leaving. Great.

I realize that your brain might not be advanced enough to understand that,
in a message directly replied to klous, I could also be addressing anyone or
everyone else in the newsgroup.

Oh and BTW why do you keep adding "Cue avoidance by jenny" dep[site that
fact that I am addressing nearly every issue you raise?

"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
news:p9nduillv3pnk01cga7il52gejo2pp4isk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:08:14 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:vc2aui97ubidmjdt53sa3gbad9qf7cv7ck@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:41:41 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"K Wills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>>news:64hbtihludrc4ve1m5pq9usslns829bso9@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:23:28 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>you don't need a court to take an oath, kwills.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only an officer of the court can place someone under oath.
>>>>
>>>>In a court of law, that is is correct.
>>>>
>>>>But this is not a court of law, this is USENET NEWSGROUP.
>>>
>>> Thanks for admitting that nobody can place anyone under any kind of
>>> oath in alt.f.f-f.
>>
>>I never said that. Anyone can place themself or someone else under any
>>oath in any place. For it to be LEGALLY binding must be in a court.
>
> You can LIE and claim you've placed someone under oath.

I never said "I placed" you under oath. What I said, was, you were speaking
under oath.

"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
news:dcnduilbsm72ihem0k0jf0lkuf63729td9@4ax.com...

>>>[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]
>>
>>No I didn't. I never, not even once said, "Frank is lying."
>
> No one claimed you said, or wrote, that.

Yes, YOU DID kwills. And you will AGAIN in this very message. (See below)

>>What I said
>>was, BE CAREFUL FRANK, or they will ACCUSE you of lying.
>
> Which means you propose he must have lied about something.

See?

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 13:21:04 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>news:p9nduillv3pnk01cga7il52gejo2pp4isk@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:08:14 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:vc2aui97ubidmjdt53sa3gbad9qf7cv7ck@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:41:41 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"K Wills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>>>news:64hbtihludrc4ve1m5pq9usslns829bso9@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:23:28 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>you don't need a court to take an oath, kwills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only an officer of the court can place someone under oath.
>>>>>
>>>>>In a court of law, that is is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>But this is not a court of law, this is USENET NEWSGROUP.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for admitting that nobody can place anyone under any kind of
>>>> oath in alt.f.f-f.
>>>
>>>I never said that. Anyone can place themself or someone else under any
>>>oath in any place. For it to be LEGALLY binding must be in a court.
>>
>> You can LIE and claim you've placed someone under oath. And you
>>will certainly try.
>
>I never said "I placed" you under oath.

No one has claimed you did. I wrote that you can claim it, not
that you said it.
Again you PROVE you NEED to lie.

>What I said, was, you were speaking
>under oath.

You made no such statement. Ever. But post the MID where you
stated I was speaking (or writing as any honest person would claim)
under oath.
Again, you PROVE you NEED to lie.

[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]

--
A small number of the documented lies of Jerry "Jenny" Sauk.
http://jerrylies.byethost22.com/?i=2

On Tue, 05 Mar 2024 03:49:25 -0800, KlausSchadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:52:54 -0800, KWills <kw19@kw.kw> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:08:45 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I have adopted Jenny's posting standards for this reply. I'm certain
>>he will be pleased that I found his standards worthy of emulation.
>>
>>
>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0h2auipec3s2p8hv6fg5qduoc3kfueuq2v@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:50:42 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>>>news:hchmtipmkidgihts045mfsli5asm37ats3@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:07:26 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>>
>>>>>> Klaus is leaving? Since you replied to him, you must think he's
>>>>>> leaving. Or you've been caught in another lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I never thought that or said that at all.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, liar, you certainly did.
>>>>
>>>>>I was obviously replying to YOU
>>>>
>>>> You were obviously replying to me.
>>>
>>>I was replying to your message, yes,
>>
>> So you freely admit you replied to Klaus, meaning you claimed he
>>was the one leaving. Great.
>>
>>[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]
>
>I'm glad we FINALLY got this settled! LOL

It's sad that it took so long.

--
No todos los que ven tus obras ven tus virtudes.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 13:23:00 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>news:handuilu22gg23fadrf8kmk0oclv85j03i@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:08:45 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have adopted Jenny's posting standards for this reply. I'm certain
>> he will be pleased that I found his standards worthy of emulation.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:0h2auipec3s2p8hv6fg5qduoc3kfueuq2v@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:50:42 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>>>news:hchmtipmkidgihts045mfsli5asm37ats3@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 18:07:26 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>>
>>>>>> Klaus is leaving? Since you replied to him, you must think he's
>>>>>> leaving. Or you've been caught in another lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I never thought that or said that at all.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, liar, you certainly did.
>>>>
>>>>>I was obviously replying to YOU
>>>>
>>>> You were obviously replying to me.
>>>
>>>I was replying to your message, yes,
>>
>> So you freely admit you replied to Klaus, meaning you claimed he
>> was the one leaving. Great.
>
>I realize that your brain might not be advanced enough to understand that,
>in a message directly replied to klous, I could also be addressing anyone or
>everyone else in the newsgroup.
>

You freely admitted you claimed he was the one leaving. Too late
now.

>Oh and BTW why do you keep adding "Cue avoidance by jenny" dep[site

What is "dep[site"?
What is the root of your irrational fear of your spell checker?

>that
>fact that I am addressing nearly every issue you raise?

But you do not address any issue I raise. You play avoidance
games in an attempt to add to your lies. When you don't run away from
the truth you HATE, that is.

[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]

--
A small number of the documented lies of Jerry "Jenny" Sauk.
http://jerrylies.byethost22.com/?i=2

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 13:24:45 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

Post edits restored.

>
>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>news:dcnduilbsm72ihem0k0jf0lkuf63729td9@4ax.com...
>>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:14:12 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Post edit restored to the original at no additional cost.
>>
>>
>>
>>>"KWills" <kw19@kw.kw> wrote in message
>>>news:pf8bui18gp53b20qom0pm2pmuo041rgkro@4ax.com...
>>>> >On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 22:52:29 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Post edits restored to the original text and context.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like, for instance, when you lied by claiming I said I had ordered a
>>>>>>>>> strawberry frosty and, when I asked for proof, you supplied a link
>>>>>>>>> PROVING YOU LIED!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was so funny. It made me laugh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Laugh laugh laugh laugh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now now, let's be fair -- to be a lie, there
>>>>>>>> has to be intent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Careful frank, or thier
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is "thier?"
>>>>>> If you mean their, explain their what? What, exactly, is theirs?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jenny?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>Jenny?
>>
>>

Jenny?

>>>>>>[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>going to start calling you a liar also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you propose there is a lie in Frank's post? There isn't
>>>>>>one, of course. You are simply feeding your NEED to lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jenny?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>Jenny?
>>
>>

Jenny?

>>>>>> Yes, you do have clear intent. This is PROVED by your refusal to
>>>>>>admit you're wrong when you are proved wrong. When absolute PROOF of
>>>>>>the truth is offered, you continue to make the false claim, proving
>>>>>>your intent to lie the whole time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jenny?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>Jenny?
>>
>>

Jenny?

>>>>>> Your reader appears to have removed the following. Had you
>>>>>>snipped it, you would have pointed this out. Unless your intent was,
>>>>>>and is, to present the LIE that Frank posted nothing else. I restored
>>>>>>it so that you might address the remainder of Frank's post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Begin C&P-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jerry apparently has a profound disability which prevents
>>>>>>him from differentiating between a shake and a
>>>>>>frosty -- so he is merely mistaken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Though, he did actually lie once, and then
>>>>>>admitted it. IIRC, it was some email
>>>>>>he claimed to have gotten from a 'froup denizen.
>>>>>>(I guess he forgot about that.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What I don't understand, though, is why he
>>>>>>turns "au" into "ou" in pretty much everything
>>>>>>he writes...except his own name. He should
>>>>>>change his name to "Souk" to be consistent,
>>>>>>don't you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(Though then again, he did spell your name as "Kloaus"
>>>>>>in the subject, which could be an honest attempt
>>>>>>to at least _try_ to get it right. Funny about that.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----End C&P-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]
>>>>>
>>>>> I never proposed that frank was lying, Kwills.
>>>>
>>>> You did. That you snipped it away when you replied (I restored
>>>> the original text) doesn't alter that you did make such a proposal.
>>>>
>>>>>You are simply feeding
>>>>>your NEED to accuse me of lying.
>>>>
>>>> In order for your claim of, "Careful frank, or thier [sic] going
>>>>to start calling you a liar also." there MUST be something you suggest
>>>>can be interpreted as a lie. Frank's erroneous position that you are
>>>>just profoundly stupid, so much so that you lack the intent to
>>>>deceive, can't be it. Unless you have something to point to that shows
>>>>he was less than honest in his claim.
>>>> If you have something, present it for review. If you're simply
>>>>furthering your NEED to lie, you will present only avoidance. If you
>>>>don't run away from the truth.
>>
>>
>>Note that Jenny ran away from the truth, admitting, by default, that
>>he lied.
>>
>>

And Jenny has admitted it again.

>>>> I do like your use of projection. You NEED to lie and so to
>>>>dishonestly deflect from it, you claim I somehow NEED to accuse you of
>>>>lying. Anyone who reads our interactions will see I simply point out
>>>>your lying when you lie. If you feel I'm doing this too often, you may
>>>>find some benefit in being honest. But, as you keep proving, honesty
>>>>isn't an option for you, unless you make a mistake.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>Jenny?
>>
>>

Jenny?

>>>>[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]
>>>
>>>No I didn't. I never, not even once said, "Frank is lying."
>>
>> No one claimed you said, or wrote, that. Why are you LYING about
>>this? And what does this lie of yours have to do with your failed use
>>of projection? I honestly do not see the connection.
>>

Jenny?

>>>What I said
>>>was, BE CAREFUL FRANK, or they will ACCUSE you of lying.
>>
>> Which means you propose he must have lied about something. There
>>can be no accusation without an action.
>> But you know this.
>
>
>Yes, YOU DID kwills.

Did what? Fail to dumb it down to your intellectual level? I
doubt it. You surely know the truth, but since you HATE any and all
forms of honesty, you lie about it.

>And you will AGAIN in this very message. (See below)
>

You mean PROVE you LIED?

>
>>>What I said
>>>was, BE CAREFUL FRANK, or they will ACCUSE you of lying.
>>
>> Which means you propose he must have lied about something.
>
>See?

I see that you proposed Frank lied. And you keep PROVING my
position 100% correct.
Continue to lie. You will because you must.

[Cue avoidance from Jenny.]

--
A small number of the documented lies of Jerry "Jenny" Sauk.
http://jerrylies.byethost22.com/?i=2

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 13:21:04 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I never said "I placed" you under oath. What I said, was, you were speaking
>under oath.

Which, of course, is just another lie.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 13:23:00 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>in a message directly replied to klous, I could also be addressing anyone or
>everyone else in the newsgroup.

Yet you weren't. You were addressing ME, thinking I had said what
Kwills said, because you don't know how to use your newsreader.

>Oh and BTW why do you keep adding "Cue avoidance by jenny" dep[site that
>fact that I am addressing nearly every issue you raise?

Except you're just lying more.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 13:11:09 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:s9ccuilge669pfimievuqtstvfcdmfrc6a@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:09:28 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:5m2auilk6gg4dekom8ok4sb7i7l8usgpl6@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 15:48:12 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:qvuotid63r5e007h8p2a64bdnm071mhl09@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 22:48:32 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that it does NOT say I had a strawberry Frosty, making YOU the
>>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>FUCK YOU klous, you know damn well that a frosty is wendy's version of
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>shake, therefore since we were discussing FROSTY'S and you used to the
>>>>>>>term
>>>>>>>shake, means that you MEANT frosty. Besides, there is ANOTHER post
>>>>>>>where
>>>>>>>you admitted having a FROSTY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>news:n12ati5vttromqr0ji4ramh2fp7f1m2oqg@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You said, QOUTE:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Who ordered the frosty for you, or, if
>>>>>>>>>>>the strawberry Frosty wasn't ordered,
>>>>>>>>>>>how was it that it came to be in your
>>>>>>>>>>>possession.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, it is relevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No. When I had it, and who bought it, is irrelevant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it still is.
>>>>>
>>>>>IOW, irrelevant = "proves klous was wrong"
>>>>
>>>> ir·rel·e·vant: not connected with or relevant to something.
>>>> "an irrelevant comment"
>>>>>
>>>>> Which STILL leaves us with the ORIGINAL question, did you or did you
>>>>> not
>>>>>ACTUALLY HAVE a Wendy's strawberry frosty.
>>>>
>>>> It's not revelant.
>>>
>>>Why the hell not? (becouse it would prove klous wrong)
>>>
>>
>> Because it doesn't matter if I did or not.
>
>If it doesn't matter, then why not just answer the question?
>

Because its irrelevant.

Your LYING by saying I said I had a strawberry frosty, however, IS
relevant.

Hell, you STILL haven't confessed to lying when you CLAIMED I said
Wendy's wasn't fast food.

What is it about when we talk about Wendy's, you ALWAYS order a side
of lies?

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 03:46:46 -0800, KlausSchadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 13:21:04 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I never said "I placed" you under oath. What I said, was, you were speaking
>>under oath.
>
>Which, of course, is just another lie.

Yep. At no time has Jenny ever said, or wrote, that I was
speaking, or writing, under oath. He's didn't make the claim in
regards to anyone else, either.

--
Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.