Sprint committing outright FRAUD

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:06:21 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>It is simple to make the newsreader ignore the thread. The problem is the
>nature of the folks that just will not let it go.

Well, I doubt there is little you can do to change the nature of the
folks involved in the thread...

Joe Huber
[email protected]

---

› See More: Sprint committing outright FRAUD

It is called "obsessive compulsive" and is a psychological disorder.

"Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:06:21 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>It is simple to make the newsreader ignore the thread. The problem is the
>>nature of the folks that just will not let it go.
>
> Well, I doubt there is little you can do to change the nature of the
> folks involved in the thread...
>
> Joe Huber
> [email protected]

>Unless he and Joseph Huber are the same person.

That is the only explanation as it would be patently impossible for
there to be two people in the world who disagree with you.

>Unless he and Joseph Huber are the same person.

BTW, are you still "done" here and if not, how many more lies are you
going to tell?

>I wish that there was such a thing as a "Super Usenet Administrator" and
>that I could just make this thread permanently go away and never appear
>again.

Then why the **** do you keep replying to it?

Dude, there are threads I want to read, and threads I don't. The ones
I want to read, I read. The one's I don't ... I don't. I don't go on
the threads that I don't want to read and declare how much I don't want
to read them.

Do you go to every site on the Internet that you don't care to surf and
note in their guestbook how you wish their site didn't exist.

That's the thing about the 'net. You get to pick and choose. Read
what you want. Ignore what you want.

Good ****ing grief, is it not obvious?

I wish there was such thing as a "Super Common Sense Administrator" who
would slap the **** out of pole smokers who whine like little *****es
everytime a thread to their disliking appears on Usenet.

Is someone holding an AK-47 to your ****ing cranium and forcing you to
read the thread? If so, give us a sign and we will dial '911'
forthwith and send someone to your rescue.

>It is simple to make the newsreader ignore the thread.

Then ****ing do it already!!!!!!!!!

>It is called "obsessive compulsive" and is a psychological disorder.

Posting repeatedly to threads that you wish didn't exist?

Yes, I agree with you.

Try Anafranil. Supposedly the **** works. For ****'s sake, give it a
try. Please.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FWIW <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I *never* called him a liar.
>>
>> Really? You said that you didn't think it happened like the poster
>> said it happened.
>>
>> What would that make him? "Truth impaired"?
>>
>
> Where is the OP in all of this discussion?

Long gone Tom ... The only thing FWIW wants to do is troll and argue ...
Since I put him my kill filters, it's been a lot nicer and quieter. Now, if
we can only get Rob not to reply to his trolling posts, the world will be
right ...

Bob

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:43:21 GMT, "Bob Smith" wrote:
>Long gone Tom ... The only thing FWIW wants to do is troll and argue ...
>Since I put him my kill filters, it's been a lot nicer and quieter. Now, if
>we can only get Rob not to reply to his trolling posts, the world will be
>right ...

You best add Rob to your kill filter, and me too if I'm not already
there. Mij says we are obsessive/compulsive, so it's unlikely that
either of us will ever stop posting to this thread...


Joe Huber
[email protected]

"Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:43:21 GMT, "Bob Smith" wrote:
>>Long gone Tom ... The only thing FWIW wants to do is troll and argue ...
>>Since I put him my kill filters, it's been a lot nicer and quieter. Now,
>>if
>>we can only get Rob not to reply to his trolling posts, the world will be
>>right ...
>
> You best add Rob to your kill filter, and me too if I'm not already
> there. Mij says we are obsessive/compulsive, so it's unlikely that
> either of us will ever stop posting to this thread...

Jeez Joe ... There is a time to post, and a time not to post ... and the
way it's going ... I just might kill filter you. This thread has turned
senseless ... There are no winners posting in this thread.

Bob

>Jeez Joe ... There is a time to post, and a time not to post ... and the
>way it's going ... I just might kill filter you.

Can you give someone one, just one single reason why they should give a
rat's ass if you "kill filter" them?

Seriously, it's certainly your right to delete the posts of whomever
you wish on your own machine, but I can't imagine people modifying
their positions, opinions, or posting styles to stay out of your kill
filter.

Might you have overestimated your importance to the Usenet community as
a whole? Even if just a tiny bit?

>Alright ... I will do the same. I don't see FWIW getting any better for
>awhile, so a 28 day rest is in order ;-)

Oh please, no, don't!!!!

Everyone knows that I exist fo have Thomas T. Veldhouse read my posts.

Please, oh, please don't punish me by not reading my posts for 28 days.

If I were to think you weren't reading my every word, surely I would
retrieve an rope and a chair.

Please promise you won't stop reading my posts. Promise it! Say it!


BTW: Why does every annonce when they filter people? If they didn't
care, you would think they would just filter and be done with it. I
always wondered why they went out with a public proclamation. And IMHO
most people who claim to filter ... don't. It is just a mighty opus to
bow out of a thread in some kind of supposedly impressive manner.

>One could choose not to offer up the truth by leaving out facts, but that would not >make them a liar.

Are you high?

Try that in court.

On a loan application.

On a tax return.

On an insurance application.

Or to stockholders, etc, etc, etc, etc

"Lying by omission" has held to be a lie as any other lie since this
country was founded.

And that notwithstanding, the question still begs to be answered:

Why was the assumption made that the OP omitted material facts or
information? We have no proof of such claim. We weren't there.

What is the basis behind the accusation of omission of anything?

>Further, purposefully ommitting is much different than deception.

WTF ????

Look, I apologize in advance and I mean no severe offense, but this is
one of the single most stupid comments I have read in this newgroup.

Relaying a story about an interaction with a company, and purposefully
ommitting material facts and information IS deception. It's practicaly
the ****ing definition of the word "deception".

Certainly it is NOT "much different".

You guys need to spend less time playing with your killfilters, and
more time learning the language.

On 08 Nov 2005 13:20:48 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
>Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The American Heritage Dictionary definition of the noun "lie":
>> 1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true
>> 2) Something meant to decieve or give a wrong impression
>>
>> Purposely leaving out facts or misrepresenting the story would be a
>> lie by definition 2).
>
>Just as an FYI ... I did not read anywhere that Rob thought the OP
>purposefully ommitted anything. Further, purposefully ommitting is much
>different than deception. A lie is an action and saying nothing is not,
>so it is not possible to lie by ommitting facts. One could choose not
>to offer up the truth by leaving out facts, but that would not make them
>a liar.

On the one hand, I'm driven to write several paragraphs refuting this
insanely head-splitting (il)logic. On the other hand, I don't want to
prove Mij right about me being obsessive/compulsive. So, I think I'll
pass. The only reason somebody would write something so crazy would
probably be for trolling purposes anyway...

Joe Huber
[email protected]