| |
Main
Date: 09 Dec 2008 10:19:55
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Gary Carson is OK in my book
|
I haven't published it yet but for now there is a picture of Gary and next
to it it says "OK"
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 04:16:00
From: Lynx
Subject: Re: Gary Carson is OK in my book
|
> I haven't published it yet but for now there is a picture of Gary and next
> to it it says "OK"
Only because he's recently shown an incredible lapse in judgment and is
willing to believe you lies. I honestly don't know what's going on with
him. He's usually one of the most intelligent people that posts here.
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 06:45:51
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Gary Carson is OK in my book
|
On Dec 10 2008 7:16 AM, Lynx wrote:
> > I haven't published it yet but for now there is a picture of Gary and next
> > to it it says "OK"
>
> Only because he's recently shown an incredible lapse in judgment and is
> willing to believe you lies. I honestly don't know what's going on with
> him. He's usually one of the most intelligent people that posts here.
The reason I tend to believe him is that it's perfectly consistent with
the part of Scott's story about why he went to the "group" (mob?) for
suggestions about an alternative.
If you consider the possibility of a simple misunderstanding then both
stories are perfectly consistent.
Also, Scott keeps saying "show me the post" although he knows full well
the conversation was in a chat, not a newsgroup post. That suggests to me
he knows there was some degree of misunderstanding or misstatement on his
own part that he wants to avoid discussing.
And the final straw is the mob mentality. Mobs are almost always wrong
and that's what we have here. The most vocal are people who are not a
party to the agreement but just see a chance to call attention to
themselves and their own high moral character. Kind of like Bill OReilly.
I had skillz (and any threads responding to his posts) killfilled from
long, long ago. So I never saw the discussion about the bet. I've only
seen the recent discussions.
Based on character alone I'd tend to believe Scott over Skillz. But in
this case, the particular fact pattern causes me to lean towards a very
simple misunderstanding on both parts. I don't think anybody welched.
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 08:50:06
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Gary Carson is OK in my book
|
On Dec 10 2008 9:45 AM, garycarson wrote:
> On Dec 10 2008 7:16 AM, Lynx wrote:
>
> > > I haven't published it yet but for now there is a picture of Gary and
next
> > > to it it says "OK"
> >
> > Only because he's recently shown an incredible lapse in judgment and is
> > willing to believe you lies. I honestly don't know what's going on with
> > him. He's usually one of the most intelligent people that posts here.
>
> The reason I tend to believe him is that it's perfectly consistent with
> the part of Scott's story about why he went to the "group" (mob?) for
> suggestions about an alternative.
>
> If you consider the possibility of a simple misunderstanding then both
> stories are perfectly consistent.
>
> Also, Scott keeps saying "show me the post" although he knows full well
> the conversation was in a chat, not a newsgroup post. That suggests to me
> he knows there was some degree of misunderstanding or misstatement on his
> own part that he wants to avoid discussing.
>
> And the final straw is the mob mentality. Mobs are almost always wrong
> and that's what we have here. The most vocal are people who are not a
> party to the agreement but just see a chance to call attention to
> themselves and their own high moral character. Kind of like Bill OReilly.
>
> I had skillz (and any threads responding to his posts) killfilled from
> long, long ago. So I never saw the discussion about the bet. I've only
> seen the recent discussions.
>
> Based on character alone I'd tend to believe Scott over Skillz. But in
> this case, the particular fact pattern causes me to lean towards a very
> simple misunderstanding on both parts. I don't think anybody welched.
Translation:
I have no understanding of the facts at hand but I am going to shoot my
mouth off anyway because I am Gary Carson, Dammit!
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 07:15:11
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Gary Carson is OK in my book
|
> Based on character alone I'd tend to believe Scott over Skillz. But in
> this case, the particular fact pattern causes me to lean towards a very
> simple misunderstanding on both parts. I don't think anybody welched.
Yeah, and pedophiles who are 'lured' into trying to fuck little kids are
'victims' of 'mob mentality'
Anyone who thinks Gary is 'smart' needs to ask him about internet
predators. On second thought read for yourself:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/9b5fb2a6ead6b608/9b6eff5f5b345b3c?lnk=gst&q=predator#9b6eff5f5b345b3c
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2008 07:05:17
From: Scott/sjakma
Subject: Re: Gary Carson is OK in my book
|
On Dec 10 2008 9:45 AM, garycarson wrote:
> On Dec 10 2008 7:16 AM, Lynx wrote:
>
> > > I haven't published it yet but for now there is a picture of Gary and
next
> > > to it it says "OK"
> >
> > Only because he's recently shown an incredible lapse in judgment and is
> > willing to believe you lies. I honestly don't know what's going on with
> > him. He's usually one of the most intelligent people that posts here.
>
> The reason I tend to believe him is that it's perfectly consistent with
> the part of Scott's story about why he went to the "group" (mob?) for
> suggestions about an alternative.
>
> If you consider the possibility of a simple misunderstanding then both
> stories are perfectly consistent.
>
> Also, Scott keeps saying "show me the post" although he knows full well
> the conversation was in a chat, not a newsgroup post. That suggests to me
> he knows there was some degree of misunderstanding or misstatement on his
> own part that he wants to avoid discussing.
>
> And the final straw is the mob mentality. Mobs are almost always wrong
> and that's what we have here. The most vocal are people who are not a
> party to the agreement but just see a chance to call attention to
> themselves and their own high moral character. Kind of like Bill OReilly.
>
> I had skillz (and any threads responding to his posts) killfilled from
> long, long ago. So I never saw the discussion about the bet. I've only
> seen the recent discussions.
>
> Based on character alone I'd tend to believe Scott over Skillz. But in
> this case, the particular fact pattern causes me to lean towards a very
> simple misunderstanding on both parts. I don't think anybody welched.
What chat? I have chatted with Skillz once and that was several years ago.
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 10:21:46
From: Scott/sjakma
Subject: Re: Gary Carson is OK in my book
|
On Dec 9 2008 1:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
> I haven't published it yet but for now there is a picture of Gary and next
> to it it says "OK"
Gary is OK, but you are still a lowlife, ignorant, welching scumbag.
--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 10:27:13
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: Gary Carson is OK in my book
|
On Dec 9 2008 11:21 AM, Scott/sjakma wrote:
> On Dec 9 2008 1:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>
> > I haven't published it yet but for now there is a picture of Gary and next
> > to it it says "OK"
>
>
> Gary is OK, but you are still a lowlife, ignorant, welching scumbag.
Can't we organize a mass ignore of skillz? I would certainly be for that.
If anything warrants it, it's his welching, but just replying to him
calling him a welching slut or scumbag or whatever really isn't doing
anything.
--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 17:18:09
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Gary Carson is OK in my book
|
On Dec 9 2008 12:27 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> On Dec 9 2008 11:21 AM, Scott/sjakma wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9 2008 1:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
> >
> > > I haven't published it yet but for now there is a picture of Gary and
next
> > > to it it says "OK"
> >
> >
> > Gary is OK, but you are still a lowlife, ignorant, welching scumbag.
>
> Can't we organize a mass ignore of skillz? I would certainly be for that.
> If anything warrants it, it's his welching, but just replying to him
> calling him a welching slut or scumbag or whatever really isn't doing
> anything.
>
WAAAHHH! Why dont you stomp your feet and threaten to hold your breath
till you turn blue.
You are supposed to be a 'grown -up" .. WTF?
> --
> "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
> Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
|
