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

Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:29:43 GMT, BottleBob wrote:

Don't let BB's lint confuse you, BB G.

Cliff:

And THAT passes for refutation in your mind? LMAO!

They were yor lint's claims G.


Cliff:

Nope. They were all YOUR claims.

Perhaps not as your lint wrote them G.

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.

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

HUH?

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

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.

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

Not AFAIK. If so he's about the most incompetent one I've ever heard of.
Don't let his BS & copied ads (or copied buzzwords) fool you (or your
lint) again.
The guy cannot even do simple shop math it seems.

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

He just might get 1+1 right with a calculator (& several tries). That
may be true, assuming a big colored picture book of instructions came
with it and the colors on the buttons match up. IF he can read &
comprehend it.
OTOH He might be colorblind as well as reading comprehension impaired...
I don't know.

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

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

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

Your lint is running away with you again.

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

Did I? Does he?

HTH
--
Cliff

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

--I have no idea what started this ****ing contest, but I hope this
guy's not a relative! Let's get back on topic, shall we?

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : I can make damn near anything
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : ...except money, sigh.
http://www.nmpproducts.com/intro.htm
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

steamer wrote:

--I have no idea what started this ****ing contest, but I hope this
guy's not a relative! Let's get back on topic, shall we?


Steamer:

Sorry, I didn't notice that Cliff had started to crosspost to r.c.m. in
his last post. I don't know why he added comp.cad.solidworks either.
I'll remove both crossposted groups in any of my future replies to this
thread.

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

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:44:47 GMT, BottleBob wrote:

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,

Word for word & in context? LOL ...

If you think otherwise what about that wager.

I rarely take money for such public services.

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.

Your lint plays pretty loose with facts G.
OTOH They might be those 37 ton 3 inch tall green & purple unicorns
under your bed any day now .....


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.

Define "qualified" & "machine operator".
And "broom".

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.

I do, however, have years of jb's clueless posts G.
At the very least.

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.

With your lint usually choosing #1 .... rather than applying the
context first.
Perhaps it's a matter of looking words up in Wick?

(Bad lint !! Bad lint !! Down boy !!)

Here you've AGAIN verified your own erroneous claim.

Your "case by case" usually involves much argument first
(after your lint's assumptions) VBG.

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.

Is it a hawk or a handsaw?

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.

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

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.

He has real problems, eh?
Think a trade school might help him? Or would he just
get kicked out? Too old by now to learn?
Buzzwords are a crutch that lead some to BS & confusion. OTOH they can
impress clueless newbies & the gullible, right Mr. G?

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.

Think he got out of it?
http://tinyurl.com/b6dzn

Does he?

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

So it's now a matter of "seem" to your lint, is it?
http://tinyurl.com/b6dzn

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!

Your writing or your lint's G.
Now, about the chickens ....
--
Cliff