23 May 2007 18:49:46
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Yesman Mike from Ottawa, and Lying.

"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com > wrote in
message news:...
> <Mike from Ottawa> wrote in message
> news:nf425317coqu6sb4lrut8aepqt6d9jfc0l@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:20:44 -0400, "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick"
>> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Told ya you'd be denying your own words.
>>>>
>>>> You spouted a lot of crap, but that's not unusual. You whined because
>>>> I didn't care if you outed John or not. I then got tired of your
>>>> whining and said go ahead and prove it. After all your whining, you
>>>> said no. You weaselled out. Again. You can only ride so far on your
>>>> hot air. Sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide.
>>>
>>> Talk about twisting and delusions.
>>
>> Yes, you certainly do have a bagful.
>>
>>> I said "no" on the second or third relevant post to Futile John, didn't
>>> I?
>>
>> Nope, you said "no" after whining because I said it was between you
>> and John and I didn't want to play your stupid game.
>
> So put some money on it, say, 1000 bucks?

Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

>>> You said "no" on your very first (but already posted today that you
>>> don't
>>>remember it...;-)).
>>
>> Yup, I said "no." What part of "no" don't you understand?
>
> Yeah, you shanked Futile John right off, we all understood it just fine,
> and I've quoted it a dozen times now.
>
>> And don't use Dennis' smileys -- he has them patented.
>>
>>> -Then-, YOU started whining, waffling, backpedaling.
>>
>> Not at all. You tried to turn it into something else. Man, you're
>> always accusing everyone else of the same things you do.
>
> In your -own- words, just as with your boy Futile John:
>
> ==========================
> <Mike from Ottawa> wrote in message
> news:bepc43hl9v5ufnrb5brqip70n6fmgshmvr@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:57:35 -0400, "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick"
>> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're (Futile John Francis)
>>>> trying to take their
>>>> guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. I just
>>>> see you trying to understand the "why" and getting no answers but a
>>>> lot of abuse.
>>>
>>> Well, Mikey, you're wrong.
>>>
>>> I'll prove it.
>>>
>>> Will you be man enough to admit it?
>>>
>>> That's a "yes or no" question.
>>
>> That'd be a "no," then. I don't think you're man enough to produce
>> real evidence of anything, you have a hate-on for John, and I really
>> don't care what your issues are with him.
>
> I can't do any better than you refuting your own statement and
> credibility.
>
> Thanks for doing all the work.
> ======================
>
> No one turning anything there, but you turning a shank.

Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

>>> Your "Again" statement is also a lie, A Futile John Francis type filthy
>>>innuendo lie.
>>
>> What a bag of crap. But it's OK, I'm used to it from you.
>>
>>> I challenge you to prove it.
>>
>> Prove what? "Again?" Yes, it's definitely an English word. Thanks
>> for playing.
>
> Slllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiidddddddddeeeee.
>
> You lied.
>
> You slide.
>
> Everybody sees the lie, the twist, the innuendo, the slide.
>
> It's the Futile John trademark, like a worn out party favor.
>
>>> Care to bet some money on that?
>
> Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

>>> We know Futile John won't.
>>>
>>> That's where he told his "buying the pot" lie, because he was too cheap
>>> to
>>>pony up.
>>>
>>> Here's a post where you are telling a bold and bare lie before God and
>>> the
>>>world, just like Futile John Francis does.
>>
>> You are such an incredible joke and you don't mind magnifying the
>> fact. Maybe you should think about toning it down a bit.
>
> Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
>
>>> No one is twisting, no one is chanting and repeating half truth till
>>> they
>>>become urban legend.
>>
>> You always do, but I'm beginning to think there's not even a quarter
>> truth to anything you say. Everyone else is a liar except you, and
>> that really is such a boring repetitive phrase, always uttered without
>> proof, apart from your cackling clan.
>>
>> It always goes in the same old spiral -- you make some BS accusation,
>> rant and rave for a while, Scotty joins in on the chorus, and then you
>> tell your antagonist that he's a liar and that you have proof.
>>
>> It's high time you developed a new story line. Maybe call everyone a
>> liar but you're holding back on revealing the "big proof," wait for
>> Scotty to rant, then make some BS accusation.
>
> I caught you red handed, and now all you can do is shovel vitriol as the
> ship goes down.
>
>>> You just fully and intentionally lied before the house.
>>>
>>> Its an irrefutable lie.
>>
>> My, your entertainment value is dropping. So much BS, over and over
>> again.
>
> You're the repetitive one, my friend, not me.
>
> " I really don't care, but, I really don't care, but, I really don't care,
> but,"
>
>>> "After all your whining, you said no. You weaselled out. Again." -MfO
>>
>> Yup, you did. You begged for the chance to prove John a liar.
>
> I've proved Futile John a liar two score times, just like I did you.
>
> No one has to beg to do it.
>
> They need only wait.
>
> Let's see -your- version of begging one more time, for the -20th- time:
>
> ===================================
> <Mike from Ottawa> wrote in message
> news:bepc43hl9v5ufnrb5brqip70n6fmgshmvr@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:57:35 -0400, "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick"
>> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Some of the clan here keep thinking that you're (Futile John Francis)
>>>> trying to take their
>>>> guns, erase their 2nd amendment, crush their rights, etc, etc. I just
>>>> see you trying to understand the "why" and getting no answers but a
>>>> lot of abuse.
>>>
>>> Well, Mikey, you're wrong.
>>>
>>> I'll prove it.
>>>
>>> Will you be man enough to admit it?
>>>
>>> That's a "yes or no" question.
>>
>> That'd be a "no," then. I don't think you're man enough to produce
>> real evidence of anything, you have a hate-on for John, and I really
>> don't care what your issues are with him.
>
> I can't do any better than you refuting your own statement and
> credibility.
>
> Thanks for doing all the work.
>
> =========================
>
> "You begged for the chance to prove John a liar".
>
> So...
>
> Was that "begging", or were you..
>
> Lying?

Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Typical- evidence IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

Not commented on.

But wait?

Was all this SNIPPED from the reply, Yesman?

You know, <snip >ped?

We'll check tomorrow and see.

But we see you don't comment on seeing your own words, and, you SURE AS
SHIT don't put that Canadian money where your mouth is.

> Hmm.
>
>>John wanted to see it, and I got tired of your whining and told you to go
>> ahead and prove it. You said you don't have to prove bupkus. What
>> are you, a god in your own mind?
>
> No, that's a twisted delusion.
>
> I told Futile John -No-, as he has long established a pattern of refusing
> to provide information of any kind, and besides, he has seen the
> evidence -many- times.
>
> -After- your documented shanking, I told -you- there was -no use- showing
> it to you, because you plainly and clearly stated that you would not be
> man enough to admit you were wrong even if you were.
>
> Shall we review that a third time?
>
>>> Well, Mikey, you're wrong.
>>>
>>> I'll prove it.
>>>
>>> Will you be man enough to admit it?
>>>
>>> That's a "yes or no" question.
>>
>> That'd be a "no," then. -MfO
>
> I also stated that had really not come as a shock to anyone here at
> Rec.scuba.
>
> Further, this post is excellent evidence of who -really- twists words and
> lies, and has delusions.
>
> I quote it, I prove it, I show it in your own words.
>
> You and Futile John just chant it over and over and over, in complete
> moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
>
> Not one scrap of proof from you two, not ever.
>
> Just more accusation and slimy innuendo.
>
>>> And you're a piece of shit liar.
>>
>> I'll take that as a Scottyism. In fact, it's getting tougher which
>> one of you is writing these rants.
>
> He can't help being right.
>
>>> And I still have the proof, readily available to any third party who
>>>wishes to see it.
>
> <snip whining about my white hooded clan>
>
>> You smoking BC bud? Must be. Apparently it's quite powerful.
>
> Apparently you know what that means from personal experience, but I don't
> smoke anything.
> --
>
> Popeye
> "After all your whining, you said no.
> You weaselled out. Again." -MfO
> www.finalprotectivefire.com
>