From: bknight on
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:02:31 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:


>
>Not according to Bobby a couple of weeks ago. Bobby said the person
>denying the allegation had the duty to provide evidence to clear himself
>of the allegations.
>
>Alan, your argument is with Bobby, not me.
>
>See below. This is from my Outbox, where all of my posts are saved.
>
>Subject: Re: Breitbart Offers $10K for Proof It Happened.............
>From: BAR <screw(a)you.com>
>
>In article <hq5hr5ljrtqtgpjc98ta7v40hhgtt8jisd(a)4ax.com>,
>bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 08:50:48 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On 29-Mar-2010, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Proof needs to be provided by those making the allegation that it
>> >> >happened.
>> >>
>> >> Proof needs to be provided by those denying the allegation that it
>> >> didn't happen.
>> >
>> >Since when does it work that way BK? You can't prove a negative.
>>
>> IMO the probability is that there were some unwarranted things said.
>> This whole argument is moot, period.
>
>Why is the argument moot, because you say so or because there is no
>evidence to support your sides allegations?

My statement was the second one, making light of the first. Note
that my last sentence said that the argument was moot.

You're an idiot, but that's old news.

BK
>
>
>
From: BAR on
In article <ctghs5hp4r32fll6vcsquc78scvov12qe6(a)4ax.com>,
bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:02:31 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Not according to Bobby a couple of weeks ago. Bobby said the person
> >denying the allegation had the duty to provide evidence to clear himself
> >of the allegations.
> >
> >Alan, your argument is with Bobby, not me.
> >
> >See below. This is from my Outbox, where all of my posts are saved.
> >
> >Subject: Re: Breitbart Offers $10K for Proof It Happened.............
> >From: BAR <screw(a)you.com>
> >
> >In article <hq5hr5ljrtqtgpjc98ta7v40hhgtt8jisd(a)4ax.com>,
> >bknight(a)conramp.net says...
> >>
> >> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 08:50:48 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >On 29-Mar-2010, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Proof needs to be provided by those making the allegation that it
> >> >> >happened.
> >> >>
> >> >> Proof needs to be provided by those denying the allegation that it
> >> >> didn't happen.
> >> >
> >> >Since when does it work that way BK? You can't prove a negative.
> >>
> >> IMO the probability is that there were some unwarranted things said.
> >> This whole argument is moot, period.
> >
> >Why is the argument moot, because you say so or because there is no
> >evidence to support your sides allegations?
>
> My statement was the second one, making light of the first. Note
> that my last sentence said that the argument was moot.
>
> You're an idiot, but that's old news.

Call me an idiot all you want. You made a stupid statement on March 29th
and you don't like being called on it.

Bobby, I will quote you directly "Proof needs to be provided by those
denying the allegation that it didin't happen."

And I'll even take the extra step of providing a link to your post in
Google Groups. You can't weasel out of this one.

Post #37:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/browse_frm/thread/226011df
f87669c9#



From: William Clark on
In article
<f9bbe40b-6e13-4801-86f2-edc9ead1098d(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
The Bogeyman <thbgymn(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 1:45�pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/15/crashers-they-came-they-saw-they...
> >
> > > This time they were busted only because the tea partiers were tipped
> > > off beforehand. Who knows how long it had been going on before they
> > > were exposed by the cable news outlets.
> >
> > > I could swear someone already posted this link. Areyouin denial?
> >
> > "Michelle Malkin"? Give me peace.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That's gotta be it. Teh evil Michelle Malkin personally photoshopped
> those images to make libruls look mean. My bad.

I would probably think so, if I knew she wasn't too dumb to be able to
do it.
From: bknight on
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:21:50 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

>In article <ctghs5hp4r32fll6vcsquc78scvov12qe6(a)4ax.com>,
>bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:02:31 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Not according to Bobby a couple of weeks ago. Bobby said the person
>> >denying the allegation had the duty to provide evidence to clear himself
>> >of the allegations.
>> >
>> >Alan, your argument is with Bobby, not me.
>> >
>> >See below. This is from my Outbox, where all of my posts are saved.
>> >
>> >Subject: Re: Breitbart Offers $10K for Proof It Happened.............
>> >From: BAR <screw(a)you.com>
>> >
>> >In article <hq5hr5ljrtqtgpjc98ta7v40hhgtt8jisd(a)4ax.com>,
>> >bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 08:50:48 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >On 29-Mar-2010, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Proof needs to be provided by those making the allegation that it
>> >> >> >happened.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Proof needs to be provided by those denying the allegation that it
>> >> >> didn't happen.
>> >> >
>> >> >Since when does it work that way BK? You can't prove a negative.
>> >>
>> >> IMO the probability is that there were some unwarranted things said.
>> >> This whole argument is moot, period.
>> >
>> >Why is the argument moot, because you say so or because there is no
>> >evidence to support your sides allegations?
>>
>> My statement was the second one, making light of the first. Note
>> that my last sentence said that the argument was moot.
>>
>> You're an idiot, but that's old news.
>
>Call me an idiot all you want. You made a stupid statement on March 29th
>and you don't like being called on it.

You are an idiot, and this helps prove it.
>
>Bobby, I will quote you directly "Proof needs to be provided by those
>denying the allegation that it didin't happen."
>
Even a half-wit like you should be able to see that this was a put-on
of the preceding quote...and you haven't addressed that I said the
argument was moot.
>And I'll even take the extra step of providing a link to your post in
>Google Groups. You can't weasel out of this one.

Your using the term "weasel" pegs the irony meter. I looked the word
up in a dictionary and your picture was next to it. LOL.
>
>Post #37:
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/browse_frm/thread/226011df
>f87669c9#
>
TA DA. Bert "The Shallow" is dumb enough to link to the very quotes
above.

All of this because you cannot show any proof of one of your
ridiculous accusations.

Deflect, Deflect, Deflect, but if you don't think it make you look
stupid....well it proves it.

BK
>
From: William Clark on
In article <82rmm3FnmkU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:

> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-D7A928.13473116042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <MPG.26324baecc5f180b989de8(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <clark-B0CE5E.11033716042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> >> state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> >> >
> >> > In article <MPG.26323c55bf80b00f989de7(a)news.giganews.com>,
> >> > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <hq9qmi$90j$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, no_spam_(a)no_mail.com
> >> > > says...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message
> >> > > > news:MPG.263159f0a1bbff11989de2(a)news.giganews.com...
> >> > > > > In article <clark-5E0FAD.16474115042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> >> > > > > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > Not only that, the results of a poll were just released that
> >> > > > >> > indicate
> >> > > > >> > that the supporters of the TEA party movement are more highly
> >> > > > >> > educated
> >> > > > >> > and earn more than the public at large. By the far-right
> >> > > > >> > leaning
> >> > > > >> > NY
> >> > > > >> > Times no less :-)
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> But the public at large is not the block of Democratic, liberal
> >> > > > >> voters,
> >> > > > >> because a sizable chunk of the "public at large" does not
> >> > > > >> participate at
> >> > > > >> all in the political process. Clearly the Tea Parters are
> >> > > > >> Republican,
> >> > > > >> and older, since in spite of their animosity to Washington
> >> > > > >> (read -
> >> > > > >> having a black man as President), they want Social Security left
> >> > > > >> alone.
> >> > > > >> Tells you which demographic group they are form.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Which party are you registered with to cast votes in Ohio?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > * Communist Party of Ohio
> >> > > > > * Constitution Party of Ohio
> >> > > > > * Green Party of Ohio
> >> > > > > * Libertarian Party of Ohio
> >> > > > > * Natural Law Party of Ohio
> >> > > > > * Ohio Democratic Party
> >> > > > > * Ohio Republican Party
> >> > > > > * Reform Party of Ohio
> >> > > > > * Socialist Workers Party of Ohio
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Clark isn't a US citizen.
> >> > >
> >> > > I am waiting for him to show up on "Cops" some night and then next we
> >> > > will hear about him being deported back to the motherland.
> >> >
> >> > Don't hold your breath.
> >>
> >> You are the high strung type who is easily set off and argumentative.
> >
> > Really? Prove it (as opposed to someone who enjoys winding up wingnut
> > idiocy).
>
> You prove it on every post.

See - I got you again!