| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kent Wills
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:02 am Post subject: Re: tjab squirms |
 |
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:43:53 -0700 (PDT), forevernitefan
<fvrnite@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Since you already commented on them, there is no cause of me to
offer the proof again.
Do you really need to be proved the liar you are once again?
Really?
Hold the phone. HE COMMENTED ON THEM? And now he's denying they
existed?
|
He complained about the last name and address being censored.
| Quote: |
OooKAY, do you think if I dug up Tjab's post and copied it that
Timmy will do his usual avoidance and not admit he was mistaken? IOW
what he usually does when confronted with the evidence.
|
He'll run away from the thread. It's what he's done every time
he's been unable to lie his way out of a lie.
| Quote: |
First graders don't fool anyone with that line and neither do you.
Since you are the one who presented the line, your dishonest claim
(read: lie) that I offered it only serves to prove, again, that you're
lying.
Tjab lying is to be expected. I have yet to see him be honest about
anything.
|
At one time he was able. When he found he couldn't win against
me, he started lying. He's failed there as well.
| Quote: |
Rule #1: Kent Wills always lies.
Odd that I keep proving you the liar.
He blindy follows the leads and lies of a fecal-eating racist and
misogynist. His spasms of mindless stupidity will come up more and
more.
|
It's text book hero worship. Jonezie can do no wrong while
anyone who disagrees with him is out of line.
| Quote: |
You and I discussed the matter. No amount of
your lying will ever alter the truth.
What lie have I told?
When you wrote, "You raised the issue of the three-strikes law,
not I."
As you know, it was Ken Smith, who raised the issue. Knowing
this, you chose to LIE and claim it was me.
There are other examples, of course, but this alone cites one of
your most recent lies.
Anyone reading can also see where you attribute to me a line you
post.
You aren't going to get that win you want by lying. I suggest
you try being honest. You'll still lose, but at least you'll give me
a bit of a challenge in defeating you.
Tjab honest? When there are snowstorms in hell.
|
I don't see Satan offering a discount on parkas any time soon.
--
Aspire to inspire before you expire. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Kent Wills
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:10 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
On 22 Aug 2008 12:22:11 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
| Quote: | In article <64vra4h398l4hte55h68ed6s0rgs3maq3c@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21 Aug 2008 13:51:21 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
[...]
It does appear that in an earlier case you might have had felony
charges that were reduced to misdemeanors. Could that be what you're
remembering?
No. There were only felonies listed.
On the Iowa Courts web site? Or are you changing the subject? If so,
be specific about which web site you are changing the subject to.
The same site we discussed before.
We've discussed many sites. Which one are you writing about?
|
The one that listed three, or four, felonies.
There is only one such site you and I have ever discussed.
| Quote: | Your evasiveness is indicative of your dishonest intent.
|
Nice projection.
| Quote: | You can't be as dense as you present.
Oh, and why are you claiming only one felony appears on you record
when there are in fact two?
The site so often mentioned names only one.
Many sites have been often mentioned. Which one are you talking about?
The Iowa Courts web site shows two.
So you claim.
And I notice you don't deny it.
|
Not directly, but the inference is clear to anyone who lacks your
need to be dishonest.
| Quote: |
Residential burglary is the only one listed in the site that's
been spammed so much.
"The site that's been spammed so much?" Is that your idea of specificity?
|
I've never asked such a question.
Why, exactly, are you lying and claiming I asked a question I've
not asked?
| Quote: |
There are several official Iowa State web sites that show you to be
a convicted felon. For example, the Iowa Department of Corrections
database, the Iowa Courts database, and the Iowa Supreme Court web site.
The Iowa Courts database shows that burglary charges have been lodged
against you on more than one occasion.
|
Really? News to me.
How ever did I manage to avoid prosecution?
| Quote: |
There is also a charge of involving a juvenile in your crimes, for
which you have an additional conviction.
|
I find it impossible to accept that anyone, other than the
juvenile, could be convicted of any crimes committed by the juvenile.
Please cite where I, or anyone else for that matter, has been
convicted of a crime committed by a juvenile when the convicted person
is not the juvenile in question.
| Quote: |
I understand in your desperate need to gain just one win against
me, you've abandoned all sense of honesty. Still, your deception will
only serve to fail you.
What deception would that be?
|
Your false claim regarding the discussion we had, is but one
example.
Care to explain the exact reason you consistently prove you're
unwilling to be honest? This is a serious question from me.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
| Quote: | Rule #1: Kent Wills always lies.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Reality_Check©
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject: Re: Kent and Moe = 2 Liars, 1 Cup !! |
|
|
forevernitefan wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 21, 6:03 pm, t...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <7vjma4dl6vjot8ihvb5ke58kf3nok1j...@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 Aug 2008 01:31:24 -0400, t...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <775ka498s4hd1n795all4r5ujs0irpe...@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2008 21:31:41 -0400, t...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
[...]
The Iowa Supreme Court also claims he has a felony conviction.
Why don't you ask them to show you incontrovertable proof?
At one time there were at least three. Care to explain how the
other suddenly vanished,
There are no "vanished" felony convictions.
So where are the others? The ones that caused you and I to
discuss Iowa's three-strikes law?
You raised the issue of the three-strikes law, not I.
Actually, it was Ken Smith who brought it up. I hadn't even
considered it before that.
Since even then it was you and not I who claimed there were others,
you tell me.
You accepted there were others, but have since ignored it since
they vanished.
The convictions that
were listed on the Iowa Courts web site remain on the Iowa Courts
web site.
So there are three, or four, felonies still listed, huh?
Prove there were *ever* three or four felony convictions listed.
You already commented on them.
As you are so fond of saying, if you are not lying, you'll be able
to do so. (Not true, just thought you'd want to be held to your own
standard.)
I can prove it.
You can but you just don't feel like it, eh, Kent?
First graders don't fool anyone with that line and neither do you.
Rule #1: Kent Wills always lies.
You and I discussed the matter. No amount of
your lying will ever alter the truth.
What lie have I told?
Ohh, so many lies, so little time......
|
Frankly I've had enough of both of them. I have better things to do
with my time than their crap over and over again."
-- Moe (forevernitefan), obsessive-compulsive psycho , 8-13-08 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
