|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 48 OF 55 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-01-12
 | | Bureaucrat: <after that i never mentioned you even though you started folowing me around> That is a lie, see Kibitzer's Cafe p 4390. The stuff he is talking about happened after that. <tpstar> If you delete this, please delete your friend's post containing the above lie as well. I will get back to the "dialogue" issue later. |
 |
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: <quantum.conscious: <tpstar: The second worst example is the Carlsen Boundless Adulation Forum within the C-A-R-L-S-E-N page. It wasn't too long ago when someone declared himself "the guardian of the truth" over there and prepared to separate Good Posts from Bad Posts, as a precursor to dividing Good People from Bad People, so you can see how certain unrepentant rulebreakers have vast experience with this divisive branding. > <Bureaucrat: <tpstar:...notorious cyberstalking incident...cyberstalker and cyberbullier...Sulsol Page...Carlsen Boundless Adulation Forum...C-A-R-L-S-E-N page...unrepentant rulebreakers> "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." > bureaucrat , are you saying that tpstar is lying here or being dishonest ? this thing has been going on for too long now. let's clear it for once and all . let's use facts. unless you are interested only in a dishonest propaganda . in that case you may discontinue this conversation now and then at some later point write a similarly worded post about <tpstar> again. the pattern may continue forever.
>
that is page 4390 . where am i badmouthing you, bureaucrat? i asked you some questions and you ignored them.
then after ignoring those questions , a few days later you came back and called me 'dream team' . i ignored that. after that , you kept calling me 'drem team' , 'site - patrol' and i kept ignoring that. and eventually when i asked you a question again , you ignored that. and then today again you came calling 'enjoying gossip , ladies'. then when i asked you question, you ignored them again. that is the same behavior your buddy rogge displays - anytime i ask any question about him , he ignores the question and starts doing what he calls 'trying to hurt quantum.conscious ' by calling me 'lonely, miserable indian boy in canada' and such. |
|
Apr-01-12
 | | OhioChessFan: <Bureaucrat: You have been calling me names and followed me around. I never bothered to reply. I owe you nothing, I never said one bad word about you, and I don't give a damn about what you say about anything.> This is sadly typical of you and your group. The point you were allegedly responding to was: <really? when you and rogge were talking about <annie k.> in that forum , was that not gossip? you want me to remind you the details of that gossip or some other gossips you guys indulge in?> And <qc> is exactly right in that. I will note that I am not exactly <qc> biggest fan, so there's no bff issues going on here. But you refused to address the point, since you know you are plainly wrong. Let me say this again. You are wrong. And again. You are wrong. You made a false statement, in less rarefied circles, they call those things "lies", but regardless, you made a claim that was demonstrably false. And you don't care so long as your back slapping buddies agree with you. The plain fact is you were gossipping about <Annie K.> |
|
Apr-01-12
| | Bureaucrat: <The plain fact is you were gossipping about <Annie K.>> Oh really? So what did I say? |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: <bureaucrat: <tpstar> , I will get back to the "dialogue" issue later.
>
the page in kibitzer's cafe that you are referring to <bureaucrat>, there i specifically mentioned that you might evade the question at that time and later would continue the 'same pattern' and that is what you did exactly. despite that <tpstar> was very patient with you and now if his patience has worn out then i would say <he owes you nothing> and i would not be surprised if <tpstar> does not change his mind about talking to you unless you show for a certain period of time that you are willing to change your patterns. all the best, <bureaucrat> and have a nice evening. |
|
Apr-01-12
| | Bureaucrat: <quantum> You said you never mentioned me. That was a plain lie. From the Kibitzerīs Café:
<<frogbert> too has complained many times about <tpstar> .
here also <frogbert> accused <tpstar> and <tpstar> has responded. <frogbert> should respond to <tpstar>'s post now and clear it for once and all.i predict that <frogbert> will evade. and then at some later point <frogbert> and <bureaucrat> will sing their chorus about <tpstar> again and from time to time <rogge> , <appaz> will join that chorus too. i don't think <frogbert> , <bureaucrat>, <rogge>, <appaz> care much about truth.> And later the same day, on the Carlsen page, totally off-topic and for no apparent reason, you managed to post this: <<frogbert> and <bureaucrat> have started an interesting conversation at kibitzer's cafe.
those users who care about truth might be interested in this conversation which might resolve something for once and all - if <frogbert> and <bureaucrat> care about truth, that is.(the conversation involves persistent complaints of <frogbert>, <bureaucrat>, <rogge> , <appaz> but it is also about truth so <rogge> and <appaz> are therefore likely to stay away from this conversation, i would imagine)> |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: <Bureaucrat: <The plain fact is you were gossipping about <Annie K.>> Oh really? So what did I say? > do you need to ask this question? you testing patience of everybody? :) this is what you said, <bureaucrat>
in rogge forum :
in the gossip about <annie k.> with rogge one of you called her pompous and some other adjective which i don't remember. and then bureaucrat you said that <annie k.> was 'bad faith communication expert' and this is what you said today
< <Bureaucrat: There is no gossip in that place>> |
|
Apr-01-12
| | Bureaucrat: <OCF: Let me say this again. You are wrong. And again. You are wrong. You made a false statement, in less rarefied circles, they call those things "lies", but regardless, you made a claim that was demonstrably false.> First of all, I am not member of any "group". Second, please point out the statement I made that was false. Quote, please. |
|
Apr-01-12
| | Bureaucrat: < then bureaucrat you said that <annie k.> was 'bad faith communication expert'> Another lie. What is that? Google translate from memory? |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: <Bureaucrat: <quantum> You said you never mentioned me. That was a plain lie. > you are right. that is an inadvertent lie from me . i apologize. now , you said that i have been badmouthing about you for years . that is not correct. you said there was no gossip in 'that
place'.
<you lied>
do you agree or you want to evade the questions again? |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: <Bureaucrat: < then bureaucrat you said that <annie k.> was 'bad faith communication expert'> Another lie. What is that? Google translate from memory?
>
no, it is you who is lying, bureaucrat.
bureaucrat, did you participate with rogge in that conversation about <annie k> or not? |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: answer these questions and then i will show you other of your lies , bureaucrat. |
|
Apr-01-12
| | Bureaucrat: I am not lying, buddy. It is anyway pointless to have a discussion about this, as posts never stay for long in that forum. Do you want to discuss the contents of deleted posts? I canīt remember exactly what was said, but I didnīt say anything resembling your "interpretation" above. |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: <Bureaucrat: I am not lying, buddy. It is anyway pointless to have a discussion about this, as posts never stay for long in that forum. Do you want to discuss the contents of deleted posts? I canīt remember exactly what was said, but I didnīt say anything resembling your "interpretation" above.> for now, never mind what you said .
just answer this ,bureaucrat - did you participate with rogge in that conversation about <annie k> or not? |
|
Apr-01-12
| | Bureaucrat: I did participate in a conversation with rogge in his forum. I did not participate in a <conversation about Annie K.> The fact that you read that forum every day, translating it with Google translate, does not mean you always get the correct idea of what is being discussed there. I donīt know Annie K., I never spoke with her, and I donīt know anything about her. And I didnīt "gossip" about her in some forum. Stick to English, where you have more skills. |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: <Bureaucrat: I did participate in a conversation with rogge in his forum. I did not participate in a <conversation about Annie K.> The fact that you read that forum every day, translating it with Google translate, does not mean you always get the correct idea of what is being discussed there. I donīt know Annie K., I never spoke with her, and I donīt know anything about here. And I didnīt "gossip" about here in some forum. Stick to English, where you have more skills.> bureaucrat, rogge posted annie's post from some other forum in his forum and it was in english. and then he (if it was not you. it was one of you) called her 'pompous' in norwegian . after that conversation there were posts from you soon after do you agree or not? |
|
Apr-01-12
| | Bureaucrat: Give it a rest now, dude. As I said, I owe you nothing, and certainly not to explain to you why I was talking to someone else in their forum and what we were talking about. |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: <Bureaucrat: Give it a rest now, dude. As I said, I owe you nothing, and certainly not to explain to you why I was talking to someone else in their forum and what we were talking about.> ofcourse. hehehe
you came here calling ' enjoying gossip ladies'
and then you gave evidence of my lie.
i did not even say that i did not remember that episode (which is the case. i did not remember). i said it was inadvertent lie from me and i apologize. and when i ask you question about your lies, you say 'you don't owe me anything'. i don't even ask you questions before answering your question with a lot of honesty and integrity. and when i ask you question about your lie and rule breaking etc., you would ignore and rudely say you don't owe me anything. so why would you even have a conversation in which you ask question to me or about me and/or comment about me ? |
|
Apr-01-12
 | | tpstar: "Do you like parties?"
"Yeah!"
"We can invite all our friends, and have soda and pie." "YEAH!"
"I hope no Bad People show up."
"AAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!" |
|
Apr-01-12
| | OhioChessFan: <frogbert: ocf, do you want me to show you how <untrue> tpstar's statement about that ancient carlsen-page episode is? > No. I am not 100% on board with <tpstar> either. However, I have zero intention of carrying on until Kingdom Come with him. |
|
Apr-01-12
| | Bureaucrat: <i did not even say that i did not remember that episode (which is the case. i did not remember). i said it was inadvertent lie from me and i apologize. and when i ask you question about your lies, you say 'you don't owe me anything'.> No. You fabricated my "lies" and made your own.
Hello, tp. Which rules am I breaking? Show me, please. |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: <frogbert> , perhaps , you should not have posted here because earlier you have threatened <tpstar> in his forum in a belligerent fashion and <tpstar> asked you not to post in his forum till you change your tone , behavior etc. this post you could have posted in your forum and you could have attention of <ocf> anywhere on the site. |
|
Apr-01-12
| | tpstar: <quantum.conscious> Our goal was to make things better and not worse. Your new friend has proven that he cares about this site and plans to follow the rules. Now would be the ideal time to offer him a draw so he may enjoy the site without feeling like he is being hounded irrationally or treated unfairly. Do it for <angslo>, do it for <TheGladiator>, and do it for Dexter. ;>D |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: <Bureaucrat: <i did not even say that i did not remember that episode (which is the case. i did not remember). i said it was inadvertent lie from me and i apologize. and when i ask you question about your lies, you say 'you don't owe me anything'.> No. You fabricated my "lies" and made your own. >
so, you evade the questions and then say that you claim you not lying because you say so. :) that is the way you have been for so long and you have been so agressive with <tpstar> for so long and now you demanding the answer to a question from tpstar. and that too when <tpstar> told you he would not have conversation with you till you change your behavior . do you think <tpstar> should answer your question? :) |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | quantum.conscious: < tpstar: <quantum.conscious> Our goal was to make things better and not worse. Your new friend has proven that he cares about this site and plans to follow the rules. Now would be the ideal time to offer him a draw so he may enjoy the site without feeling like he is being hounded irrationally or treated unfairly. Do it for <angslo>, do it for <TheGladiator>, and do it for Dexter. ;>D > yes :) |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 48 OF 55 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
