Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:30:28 GMT, BottleBob wrote:

Cliff wrote:

They were yor lint's claims G.


Cliff:

Nope. They were all YOUR claims.

Perhaps not as your lint wrote them G.

Cliff:

They were YOUR claims, If you think otherwise what about that wager.
LOL

How about we make a friendly wager? For every claim from the list
below that I can match up with one of your posts stating such, let's say
you send me a C note. For every one I can't match up, I send YOU a C
note. What do you say ol' buddy, eh? g

Words usually confuse the lint.

So are we on for the bet?


================================================= =========
1. You've posted your opinion as if it were fact, that one was caught
just the other day.

HUH?

You do this constantly. You've even done it in THIS post. So you've
verified that you engage in the practice.


2. You've claimed JB is only a broom pusher, without knowing whether
this is true or not.

I've seen the picture ..... better than 1,000 words, right?

A fabricated picture? But every machinist holds a broom now and then,
that in no way means that's all they are qualified to do.

Are you saying that he's not even qualified to do that?

I'm saying no such thing. What I'm saying is that your specious
demeaning insults are misleading, dishonest, and unethical since you
have no personal knowledge or facts to base them upon.


3. You claimed I said the #1 definition is the ONLY definition I use.
Patently untrue and you can't back that one up.

You've done it too many times to count. You & your lint just love #1G.

I may sometimes use the #1 definition since it's usually the most
relevant one (that's generally why it was chosen to be #1), but that in
no way means it's the ONLY definition I ever use. These are determined
on a case by case basis.
Here you've AGAIN verified your own erroneous claim.


4. You claim JB's not a machinist, which is ridiculous since he's been
machining for years.

Not AFAIK.

So you've verified THIS claim of yours as well. If you think adding
AFAIK to any WAG somehow relieves you of any responsibility to check
your facts, you're sadly mistaken.

The guy cannot even do simple shop math it seems.

Verification for claim #5.


5. You claimed JB can't do simple shop math, which is very unlikely.


6. You claimed JB has kids, which he's denied.

I still feel very sorry for them. Don't you?

By "them" we'll assume and stipulate that you mean "his" kids. So you
have just verified the claim that he has kids. He never adopted his
wife's prior kids.


7. You claimed JB can't do shop trig., that's probably unlikely.

Your lint is running away with you again.

Looks like you verified this claim as well. If you say he can't do
simple shop math then that would include trig. as well.


8. You claimed JB has child support problems, which he can't have
without having kids.

Did I?

Yes, you did. Easily found in a Google search.

Does he?

Nope, he doesn't seem to have any kids.


Well, it looks like you've verified #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7, all on
your own. So that would be like $600 your owe me. Without me even
bothering to lift a finger to do any Google searches. A postal money
order will do nicely.
Now tell me again how these were *MY* claims. LMAO!

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob