vpFREE2 Forums

The Secret Behind vpFREE

#1

Too often, we see the admin. say how he tries to keep discussions non-
disruptive. I don't see why. Most reasons for 'disruption' stem from
disagreements. On a forum with thousands of readers, arguments, if kept
civil (i.e., no vulgarity or unfounded name-calling) are far better
learning tools for those who are there trying to learn. Personal
attacks happen - sometimes deservedly so and sometimes not - and when
they do, there's absolutely no reason to sanction or edit or moderate
or send that poster away unless common sense dictates that the 'attack'
has zero merit and it continues. Saying something like "Jean Scott's
video poker show is as phoney as a $3 bill" is certainly based on
common sense and is something most people on vpFREE understand and
don't mind reading about. While it might negatively affect her and some
of those who worship at her skirt, it obviously HAS merit. You don't
agree, say so. Big deal. Opinions are what form other people's baseline
positions from which to approach video poker.

What the admin. has made out of the forum is simple: Because he has the
same opinion on what constitutes intelligent video poker play as the
gurus and the math people--who make up a very small percentage of the
members--it is basically a forum for them to exchange confidence-
building pats on the back. People like the Queen, Dan Paymar and Bob
Dancer are allowed to shamelessly promote everything they sell with
every post, which on most Yahoo forums is considered spam and is not
allowed. Why? Because it's a DISRUPTION. Hmmmm...... But what the
admin. did not count on was the battle of the gurus on his forum.
Because he was blindsided, he did not handle that well and continues to
tiptoe around it. What he should be doing if he's truly serious about
the 'no disruption' claim, is ban Bob from posting. From which location
has there ever been more disruption than from Dancer? Even little dicky
hates him!

Normal people are stifled on vpFREE and that hurts the forum greatly.
Nothing's worse than a forum with thousands of members who don't or
won't even read posts because they are afraid to reply with common
sense opinions. So what do these people do? Many (maybe most) also are
members of my e-newsletter, so I constantly get bombarded with cut &
paste posts along with their comments about how frustrated they are
with not being able to post on vpFREE.

A forum needs to make sense. Even freevpfree makes more sense than
vpFREE. At least we can have fun here, I can play "chase a geek", he
can call me names, and it can go on and on until it's not fun anymore.
All that goes on at vpFREE is many many posts that bore, the math
people making meaningless posts to boost their egos, the non-stop
postings of Jean Scott reminding the folks how she's the best thing to
come along since microwave ovens, and Bob Dancer's usual array of
asking for everyone's credit cards at every turn. It seems to me
there's a plea going on over there, but no one's listening....purposely.

Although 'The Ali Shuffle' was somewhat recently used to confuse the
name of the currect administrator--and some know while most don't who
that is--what's the difference anyway? That's his (or her) choice.
Anyway, would YOU want to be that person??

#2

Seems that most people don't have much of a problem with how vpFREE is
moderated, even if some do disagree to some extent. Those who do can
certainly join one of the alternative groups. (And hopefully have
something better to do with their time than snipe about the moderation
of vpFREE).

- H.

#3

Harry--Leave it to you to try and avert a controversy. The 'nice guy'
scenario doesn't always work, and this is an example. If 'most people'
didn't have a problem with how vpFREE is operated, then most people
would be posting instead of hiding away. I get my info from my e-
newsletter members. Where's yours come from? Moderation on vpFREE is
there for the sole purpose of keeping the guru clique happy about the
misleading activity they're involved in while preying off of the weak
and inexperienced. That's one reason why I'm more popular than the
famous names, I'm more respected than them, why I wasn't simply 'gone
in 60 seconds' as they hoped and wanted me to be, and why the majority
of players feel more comfortable when reading what I have to say: I'm

···

on their side, I don't hold back when it comes to common sense, and they know the truth when they see it. --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

Seems that most people don't have much of a problem with how vpFREE is
moderated, even if some do disagree to some extent. Those who do can
certainly join one of the alternative groups. (And hopefully have
something better to do with their time than snipe about the moderation
of vpFREE).

- H.

#4

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

Seems that most people don't have much of a problem with how vpFREE

is

moderated, even if some do disagree to some extent. Those who do can
certainly join one of the alternative groups. (And hopefully have
something better to do with their time than snipe about the

moderation

of vpFREE).

- H.

Understood. And this is the point I was trying to make. You allow
yourself to speak for "most people," and you are nice enough to invite
people like me who disagree with moderation tactics to "join one of
the alternative groups" and "have something better to do with (my)
time than snipe about moderation." This is what I was doing before
Linda pulled me out of the shell. Back into the lurking shell I go.
The weekend in the sunlight just confirmed what I already knew anyway.

-MARK

#5

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

Seems that most people don't have much of a problem with how vpFREE

is

moderated, even if some do disagree to some extent. Those who do can
certainly join one of the alternative groups. (And hopefully have
something better to do with their time than snipe about the

moderation

of vpFREE).

- H.

Understood. And this is the point I was trying to make. You allow
yourself to speak for "most people," and you are nice enough to invite
people like me who disagree with moderation tactics to "join one of
the alternative groups" and "have something better to do with (my)
time than snipe about moderation." This is what I was doing before
Linda pulled me out of the shell. Back into the lurking shell I go.
The weekend in the sunlight just confirmed what I already knew anyway.

-MARK

#6

rsing1111 wrote:

Harry--Leave it to you to try and avert a controversy. The 'nice
guy' scenario doesn't always work, and this is an example. If 'most
people' didn't have a problem with how vpFREE is operated, then most
people would be posting instead of hiding away.

I do wonder what it would take to offend you (it certainly takes far
less for others ;).

I bascially told people to stop their snivelling and go find (or
start) another group if they don't like how vpFREE is managed. I put
anyone who continues to snipe and has nothing good to say about
something and yet doesn't simply move on and leave what they find
distasteful behind in the same category as those who bitch about how
their treated by a casino and yet doesn't find another place more
preferable to play.

As far as the post:member ratio, I know you don't really need to be
told that members come and go in any group yet continue to be counted
as members, nor that a minority participates in most any group. And
of those who still follow the group, I dare you to name any large
group, say of 1000+ member, in which a large proportion of the group
isn't sitting on the sidelines.

I welcome the moderator's management of vpFREE. I shudder to think of
the free-for-all that it might be otherwise. Concerning your personal
moderation, the suggest that the group doesn't welcome dissent. I see
no evidence of that. It was the manner in which you conducted your
self, at times downright obnoxious, and often in the most
non-constructive fashion imaginable that led to the exclusion of your
posts. When you contributed in a reasoned fashion I found the posts
intelligent and enlightening. But many (most?) of your posts were
offensive and primarily written to get a rise out of others. Whatever
your intent, it was a garbage contribution, plain and simple.

I look to the greater body of your contributions here, your exchanges
with Dick, as evidence that would make me loathe to have you join any
discussion group in which I actively participated. You may believe
the exchanges are sufficiently entertaining to others that they
warrant monopolizing the bandwidth here. But I suggest that you take
it to a "Rob and Dicky" group.

Fortunately, I can make that observation in a non-moderated group
because, frankly, if you're looking for an activity that discourages
the active participation of others, not to mention a broader
discussion, look in the mirror.

btw, I've indicated previously, I have respect for both you and Dick
because, in my assessment, you have no evil agenda. You're just being
yourself and I take that in stride, except when I see it impinging
upon the satisfactory participation of others.

I still think I'm being the "nice guy", Rob, but hardly averting this
issue.

- Harry

#7

Hmmm. I wonder how many assertions will show up here and how many
facts will be given to back them up.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

Too often, we see the admin. say how he tries to keep discussions

non-

disruptive.

Assertions=1.

I don't see why. Most reasons for 'disruption' stem from
disagreements. On a forum with thousands of readers, arguments, if

kept

civil (i.e., no vulgarity or unfounded name-calling) are far better
learning tools for those who are there trying to learn.

Assertion=2, in this case it describes the policy on VPFree.

Personal
attacks happen - sometimes deservedly so and sometimes not - and

when

they do, there's absolutely no reason to sanction or edit or

moderate

or send that poster away unless common sense dictates that

the 'attack'

has zero merit and it continues.

Assertions=3, I think most will agree this is simply untrue. Personal
attacks are the weapons of the weak-minded.

Saying something like "Jean Scott's
video poker show is as phoney as a $3 bill" is certainly based on
common sense and is something most people on vpFREE understand and
don't mind reading about.

Assertions=4. A lie and typical Singerism.

While it might negatively affect her and some
of those who worship at her skirt, it obviously HAS merit.

Assertions=5. ... Still waiting for just one fact.

You don't
agree, say so. Big deal. Opinions are what form other people's

baseline

positions from which to approach video poker.

Assertions=6, opinions about a personal attack have no value. If
someone agrees or disagrees doesn't provide anyone else any insight.
The other kind of opinions are what VPFree is all about.

What the admin. has made out of the forum is simple: Because he has

the

same opinion on what constitutes intelligent video poker play as

the

gurus and the math people--who make up a very small percentage of

the

members--it is basically a forum for them to exchange confidence-
building pats on the back.

Assertions = 7. Still waiting for that elusive fact.

People like the Queen, Dan Paymar and Bob
Dancer are allowed to shamelessly promote everything they sell with
every post, which on most Yahoo forums is considered spam and is

not

allowed. Why? Because it's a DISRUPTION.

Assertions = 8, followed by an opinion (still no facts).

mmm...... But what the
admin. did not count on was the battle of the gurus on his forum.
Because he was blindsided, he did not handle that well and

continues to

tiptoe around it.

Assertions=9.

What he should be doing if he's truly serious about
the 'no disruption' claim, is ban Bob from posting. From which

location

has there ever been more disruption than from Dancer? Even little

dicky

hates him!

Assertions=10, and no, I don't hate Dancer. I don't like his arrogant
posts.

Normal people are stifled on vpFREE and that hurts the forum

greatly.

Assertions=11.

Nothing's worse than a forum with thousands of members who don't or
won't even read posts because they are afraid to reply with common
sense opinions.

Assertions=12.

So what do these people do? Many (maybe most) also are
members of my e-newsletter,

Assertions=13, and most likely and outright lie.

so I constantly get bombarded with cut &
paste posts along with their comments about how frustrated they are
with not being able to post on vpFREE.

Assertions=14, and another obvious lie.

A forum needs to make sense. Even freevpfree makes more sense than
vpFREE.

Assertions=15.

At least we can have fun here, I can play "chase a geek", he
can call me names, and it can go on and on until it's not fun

anymore.

All that goes on at vpFREE is many many posts that bore, the math
people making meaningless posts to boost their egos, the non-stop
postings of Jean Scott reminding the folks how she's the best thing

to

come along since microwave ovens, and Bob Dancer's usual array of
asking for everyone's credit cards at every turn. It seems to me
there's a plea going on over there, but no one's

listening....purposely.

Assertions=16, this is really several assertions but they are of the
same ilk.

Although 'The Ali Shuffle' was somewhat recently used to confuse

the

name of the currect administrator--and some know while most don't

who

that is--what's the difference anyway? That's his (or her) choice.
Anyway, would YOU want to be that person??

Assertions=16.

There you have it, the assertions win 16-0. Don't get me wrong,
opinions are what forums are all about. It would be nice if Rob
voiced his assertions as opinions once in a while. It would also be
nice if he provided one or two facts to back them up. Whenever he is
pushed to provide facts he simply resorts to name calling and monkey
boy bravado.

#8

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>

As far as the post:member ratio, I know you don't really need to be
told that members come and go in any group yet continue to be

countedas members, nor that a minority participates in most any
group. And of those who still follow the group, I dare you to name
any largegroup, say of 1000+ member, in which a large proportion of
the groupisn't sitting on the sidelines.

My sense tells me that generically speaking, you're right. But video
poker grips onto people a wee bit more than other issues. It seems
more would want to participate more often. Plus lots of people tell
me that.

I welcome the moderator's management of vpFREE. I shudder to think

ofthe free-for-all that it might be otherwise. Concerning your
personal moderation, the suggest that the group doesn't welcome
dissent. I see no evidence of that. It was the manner in which you
conducted yourself, at times downright obnoxious, and often in the
most non-constructive fashion imaginable that led to the exclusion of
your posts.

Not true on vpFREE. I was moderated out every time I questioned what
I KNOW to be BS by a favorite son or daughter. At times it could be
construed as being too strong, but that's also something that should
be acceptable for people to have a good lively debate over. You're
implying that my personality from vpheaven and here transferred over
there.

Fortunately, I can make that observation in a non-moderated group
because, frankly, if you're looking for an activity that discourages
the active participation of others, not to mention a broader
discussion, look in the mirror.

You seem to be basing your frankness in being selective in your
judgement. There's a reason those who meet up with me want to see
and/or talk with me again. There's also good reasons why several
respected publishers choose me over the others as their vp spokesman.
My mirror shows multiple depths, and I respond to the one being
addressed at any particluar points in time.

btw, I've indicated previously, I have respect for both you and Dick
because, in my assessment, you have no evil agenda. You're just

being

yourself and I take that in stride, except when I see it impinging
upon the satisfactory participation of others.
I still think I'm being the "nice guy", Rob, but hardly averting

this issue.

PK.

#9

One of your big problems, little dicky, is you are the picture od
inconsistency. You could just as easily do your foolish dance on
anyone's post anywhere. People either respect what I say or they love
to hate it. The ones who respect it know I'm reliable because I've done
my homework in most cases, and what I've uncovered cannot be displayed
on a public forum regardless of how much you long for your 'facts'. So
it is offered as an educated opinion. Even your inserted 'assertions'
are opinions simply because you have less knowledge of the facts than I
do.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

There you have it, the assertions win 16-0. Don't get me wrong,
opinions are what forums are all about. It would be nice if Rob
voiced his assertions as opinions once in a while. It would also be
nice if he provided one or two facts to back them up. Whenever he is
pushed to provide facts he simply resorts to name calling and monkey
boy bravado.

#10

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> There you have it, the assertions win 16-0. Don't get me wrong,
> opinions are what forums are all about. It would be nice if Rob
> voiced his assertions as opinions once in a while. It would also

be

> nice if he provided one or two facts to back them up. Whenever he

is

> pushed to provide facts he simply resorts to name calling and

monkey

> boy bravado.

One of your big problems, little dicky, is you are the picture od
inconsistency.

Well, another assertion, let's see what follows ...

You could just as easily do your foolish dance on
anyone's post anywhere. People either respect what I say or they

love

to hate it.

Translation: Robbie has no facts to back him up.

The ones who respect it know I'm reliable because I've done
my homework in most cases, and what I've uncovered cannot be

displayed

on a public forum regardless of how much you long for your 'facts'.

I think I'd count them in the "sucker" category myself. The "inside
info" line is a dead giveaway of a con.

So
it is offered as an educated opinion. Even your

inserted 'assertions'

are opinions

No, I think it pretty obvious they ARE assertions. Opinions usually
start out with "I think", or "IMO" or one of the many variations.

simply because you have less knowledge of the facts than I
do.

Another assertion. And, to noone's surprise, with no supporting
evidence. Did I mention the monkey boy?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@> wrote:

#11

> One of your big problems, little dicky, is you are the picture

of inconsistency.

Well, another assertion, let's see what follows ...

Just how dumb are you? Rather than straight out deny like you
usually do, you call it exactly what it is--an assertion....better
known as opinion in the non-geek world.

> You could just as easily do your foolish dance on
> anyone's post anywhere. People either respect what I say or they
love to hate it.

Translation: Robbie has no facts to back him up.

Hmmmm....Avoiding the issue that makes you look odd once again.
Maybe you're waiting for your pal to come on and praise you?? Or
maybe you're just too rattled to put a meaningful set of words
together. Either way, whenever you're called upon to defend your
position of inconsistency, you dodge the issue. Very odd.....

> The ones who respect it know I'm reliable because I've done
> my homework in most cases, and what I've uncovered cannot be
displayed on a public forum regardless of how much you long for

your 'facts'.

I think I'd count them in the "sucker" category myself.

The "inside info" line is a dead giveaway of a con.

You display a wide array of inexperience here, as usual. May I call
your statement an 'assertion' and may I ask you to support it
with 'facts'? (Throwin it back at you, little dicky---should've done
you're homework again!).

> So it is offered as an educated opinion. Even your
inserted 'assertions' are opinions

No, I think it pretty obvious they ARE assertions. Opinions

usually start out with "I think", or "IMO" or one of the many
variations.

May I ask you to 'prove' your 'assertion' that my opinions
are 'assertions'? And may I ask you to 'support with fact' that
your 'assertion' "usually starts out with 'I think' or IMO'" is an
absolute....or, as you so nobly provided in your escape route--
'pretty obvious'? Go ahead--don't rush. You've got nothing but time
to figure it out.

> simply because you have less knowledge of the facts than I
> do.

Another assertion. And, to noone's surprise, with no supporting
evidence. Did I mention the monkey boy?

May I ask you to support your "another assertion" with supporting
evidence, little dicky? Or was it simply an 'opinion' that just
didn't begin with "I think" or "IMO"?? And who is 'noone'?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#12

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > One of your big problems, little dicky, is you are the picture
of inconsistency.

> Well, another assertion, let's see what follows ...

Just how dumb are you? Rather than straight out deny like you
usually do, you call it exactly what it is--an assertion....better
known as opinion in the non-geek world.

Another assertion. Sorry, but the use of "is" in this case and your
aggressive tone makes it an assertion. Evidently, the English
language is not one of your strong points.

> > You could just as easily do your foolish dance on
> > anyone's post anywhere. People either respect what I say or

they

> love to hate it.
>
> Translation: Robbie has no facts to back him up.

Hmmmm....Avoiding the issue that makes you look odd once again.

Asserted lie. I clearly stated that you have no facts. I believe that
is taking the issue straight on. Do you or don't you any facts to
back up your statement?

Maybe you're waiting for your pal to come on and praise you?? Or
maybe you're just too rattled to put a meaningful set of words
together. Either way, whenever you're called upon to defend your
position of inconsistency, you dodge the issue. Very odd.....

RIV. I think "rattled" is the key word here. It appears Rob just
cannot handle the truth when it is force fed to him on every post.

>
> > The ones who respect it know I'm reliable because I've done
> > my homework in most cases, and what I've uncovered cannot be
> displayed on a public forum regardless of how much you long for
your 'facts'.

> I think I'd count them in the "sucker" category myself.
The "inside info" line is a dead giveaway of a con.

You display a wide array of inexperience here, as usual.

Asserted lie.

May I call
your statement an 'assertion'

No, the use of "I think" makes it an opinion.

and may I ask you to support it
with 'facts'? (Throwin it back at you, little dicky---should've

done

you're homework again!).

RIV. I won't bother looking up all the current scams. I believe it is
common knowledge that claims of inside knowledge are often related to
scams. I get spam all the time professing "inside knowledge" of what
stocks will rise. Would you like me to forward them to you?

>
> > So it is offered as an educated opinion. Even your
> inserted 'assertions' are opinions
>
> No, I think it pretty obvious they ARE assertions. Opinions
usually start out with "I think", or "IMO" or one of the many
variations.

May I ask you to 'prove' your 'assertion' that my opinions
are 'assertions'?

No problem:

Main Entry: as·sert
Pronunciation: &-'s&rt, a-
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin assertus, past participle of asserere, from ad- +
serere to join -- more at SERIES
1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or
aggressively

And may I ask you to 'support with fact' that
your 'assertion' "usually starts out with 'I think' or IMO'" is an
absolute....or, as you so nobly provided in your escape route--
'pretty obvious'? Go ahead--don't rush. You've got nothing but time
to figure it out.

Once again, no problem. Especially note "less strong than positive
knowledge". Obviously, this is NOT your style.

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-,
opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a
particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive
knowledge b : a generally held view

> > simply because you have less knowledge of the facts than I
> > do.

> Another assertion. And, to noone's surprise, with no supporting
> evidence. Did I mention the monkey boy?

May I ask you to support your "another assertion" with supporting
evidence, little dicky? Or was it simply an 'opinion' that just
didn't begin with "I think" or "IMO"?? And who is 'noone'?

Your use of "you have" is forceful and therefore meets the definition
of assertion. Also,

Main Entry: no one
Function: pronoun
: no person : NOBODY

···

Date: circa 1604
Date: 14th century
Date: before 12th century

#13

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > One of your big problems, little dicky, is you are the

picture

> of inconsistency.
>
> > Well, another assertion, let's see what follows ...
>
> Just how dumb are you? Rather than straight out deny like you
> usually do, you call it exactly what it is--an

assertion....better known as opinion in the non-geek world.

Another assertion. Sorry, but the use of "is" in this case and your
aggressive tone makes it an assertion. Evidently, the English
language is not one of your strong points.

Then have a taste....support your assertion that I'm making an
assertion. Go ahead little dicky. Show us your stuff!
  

> > > You could just as easily do your foolish dance on
> > > anyone's post anywhere. People either respect what I say or
they love to hate it.
> >
> > Translation: Robbie has no facts to back him up.
>
> Hmmmm....Avoiding the issue that makes you look odd once again.

Asserted lie.

So I'm 'asserting' that you lied? Huh?

I clearly stated that you have no facts.

So prove that assertion--or, OK, I see you don't have the TIME to do
so other than make another assertion. You're your own worst enemy!

I believe that is taking the issue straight on. Do you or don't you

any facts to back up your statement?

Absolutely. So YOU'RE the asserted liar that you've been talking
about!

> Maybe you're waiting for your pal to come on and praise you?? Or
> maybe you're just too rattled to put a meaningful set of words
> together. Either way, whenever you're called upon to defend your
> position of inconsistency, you dodge the issue. Very odd.....

RIV. I think "rattled" is the key word here. It appears Rob just
cannot handle the truth when it is force fed to him on every post.

What'sa matter little dicky? Too rattled to come up with something I
didn't say?? Poor baby....Very odd.
  

> > > The ones who respect it know I'm reliable because I've done
> > > my homework in most cases, and what I've uncovered cannot be
> > displayed on a public forum regardless of how much you long for
> your 'facts'.
>
> > I think I'd count them in the "sucker" category myself.
> The "inside info" line is a dead giveaway of a con.
>
> You display a wide array of inexperience here, as usual.

Asserted lie.

Support that with documented evidence.

> May I call your statement an 'assertion'

No, the use of "I think" makes it an opinion.

Wrong sentence. Selective. Try approaching it with your all-
fact/straight-on mentality this time.

> and may I ask you to support it with 'facts'? (Throwin it back at

you, little dicky---should've done you're homework again!).

RIV. I won't bother looking up all the current scams.

Translation: You have no idea what you're talking about. Is anyone
surprised??

I believe it is common knowledge that claims of inside knowledge are

often related to scams.

Prove that assertion, or else you're a liar! (STOP--You can't squirm
out of this one either--"I believe" was not part of your escape
route!!)! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

I get spam all the time professing "inside knowledge" of what stocks

will rise. Would you like me to forward them to you?

I'm only interested in YOUR lies, misrepresentations and phoney
pretenses. Whip out the documentation, NOW!

> > > So it is offered as an educated opinion. Even your
> > inserted 'assertions' are opinions

> > No, I think it pretty obvious they ARE assertions. Opinions
> usually start out with "I think", or "IMO" or one of the many
> variations.

> May I ask you to 'prove' your 'assertion' that my opinions
> are 'assertions'?

No problem:

Main Entry: as·sert
Pronunciation: &-'s&rt, a-
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin assertus, past participle of asserere, from ad- +
serere to join -- more at SERIES
Date: circa 1604
1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or
aggressively

BIG problem. So you're trapped--just notice it?? I asked for 'proof'
not a definition of a word. Even with it, you're rendered useless.
My 'assertions' are strongly believed opinions. Just as I've always
said. Shoulda looked it up loooong ago little dicky. The egg on your
face is never gonna dry!

> And may I ask you to 'support with fact' that
> your 'assertion' "usually starts out with 'I think' or IMO'" is

an absolute....or, as you so nobly provided in your escape route--

> 'pretty obvious'? Go ahead--don't rush. You've got nothing but

time to figure it out.

Once again, no problem

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-,
opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a
particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive
knowledge b : a generally held view

BIGGER problem! So where's the word 'assertion' in there, huh Mr.
Wizard?? Even the crutch of using the DICTIONARY can't get you out of
this one, so the only out you have now is to backpeddal. But watch
out? I'll even cut you off at the pass when you do THAT!

Especially note "less strong than positive knowledge". Obviously,

this is NOT your style.

"Assertion"--One feels a strong possibility that the statement is
true. "Opinion"--Same premise, with not as strong a feeling. So your
assumption is that all my statements are now assertions--not because
as you earlier stated, that my sentences don't begin with certain
words you pulled out of your butt, but because you now looked the
meanings up and you've selectively applied 'assertion' to me by way
of mind-reading. Do you actually realize how foolish you look with
the 'by slight of hand' slip-up?
  

> > > simply because you have less knowledge of the facts than I
> > > do.
>
> > Another assertion. And, to noone's surprise, with no supporting
> > evidence. Did I mention the monkey boy?
>
> May I ask you to support your "another assertion" with supporting
> evidence, little dicky? Or was it simply an 'opinion' that just
> didn't begin with "I think" or "IMO"?? And who is 'noone'?

Your use of "you have" is forceful and therefore meets the

definition of assertion.

So now you're selecting 'you have' as forceful?? HAHAHA!! Same goes
for your "Another assertion"! I'd continue laughing at you, but my
side is REALLY starting to hurt.

Also,

Main Entry: no one
Function: pronoun
Date: before 12th century
: no person : NOBODY

Wasn't Peter Noone of Herman's Hermits more famous than you too?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#14

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > One of your big problems, little dicky, is you are the
picture
> > of inconsistency.
> >
> > > Well, another assertion, let's see what follows ...
> >
> > Just how dumb are you? Rather than straight out deny like you
> > usually do, you call it exactly what it is--an
assertion....better known as opinion in the non-geek world.
>
> Another assertion. Sorry, but the use of "is" in this case and

your

> aggressive tone makes it an assertion. Evidently, the English
> language is not one of your strong points.

Then have a taste....support your assertion that I'm making an
assertion. Go ahead little dicky. Show us your stuff!

Already done, if you had followed the advice you gave me in another
post and read the entire note, you could have avoided this
embarrassment.

> > > > You could just as easily do your foolish dance on
> > > > anyone's post anywhere. People either respect what I say or
> they love to hate it.
> > >
> > > Translation: Robbie has no facts to back him up.
> >
> > Hmmmm....Avoiding the issue that makes you look odd once again.
>
> Asserted lie.

So I'm 'asserting' that you lied? Huh?

No, can't you read?

>I clearly stated that you have no facts.

So prove that assertion--

No problem, but this is known as proof by tautology. Everyone could
see you didn't provide a single fact. It's all there in black and
white. It would be different if you provided ANYTHING that you could
claim was a fact, you didn't. QED.

or, OK, I see you don't have the TIME to do
so other than make another assertion. You're your own worst enemy!

Once again little Robbie comes out looking like a fool.

>I believe that is taking the issue straight on. Do you or don't

you

any facts to back up your statement?

Absolutely. So YOU'RE the asserted liar that you've been talking
about!

This isn't even a good try. If you have facts, then present them.

> > Maybe you're waiting for your pal to come on and praise you??

Or

> > maybe you're just too rattled to put a meaningful set of words
> > together. Either way, whenever you're called upon to defend

your

> > position of inconsistency, you dodge the issue. Very odd.....
>
> RIV. I think "rattled" is the key word here. It appears Rob just
> cannot handle the truth when it is force fed to him on every post.

What'sa matter little dicky? Too rattled to come up with something

I

didn't say?? Poor baby....Very odd.

RIV.

> > > > The ones who respect it know I'm reliable because I've done
> > > > my homework in most cases, and what I've uncovered cannot

be

> > > displayed on a public forum regardless of how much you long

for

> > your 'facts'.
> >
> > > I think I'd count them in the "sucker" category myself.
> > The "inside info" line is a dead giveaway of a con.
> >
> > You display a wide array of inexperience here, as usual.
>
> Asserted lie.

Support that with documented evidence.

Already done. Rob's embarrassment continues ...

>
> > May I call your statement an 'assertion'
>
> No, the use of "I think" makes it an opinion.

Wrong sentence. Selective. Try approaching it with your all-
fact/straight-on mentality this time.

I did. You just didn't like the obvious answer.

> > and may I ask you to support it with 'facts'? (Throwin it back

at

you, little dicky---should've done you're homework again!).
>
> RIV. I won't bother looking up all the current scams.

Translation: You have no idea what you're talking about. Is anyone
surprised??

>I believe it is common knowledge that claims of inside knowledge

are

often related to scams.

Prove that assertion, or else you're a liar!

Not an assertion. Didn't you notice "I believe"? I guess not. When I
present an opinion like this I leave it up to the readers to agree or
disagree. I have confidence the vast majority will agree.

(STOP--You can't squirm
out of this one either--"I believe" was not part of your escape
route!!)! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

You make yourself look even more foolish by attempting to bend the
English language, which we all understand, to mean something
different. I can only imagine the frustration you must be feeling to
try such an idiotic approach.

···

> > > inserted 'assertions' are opinions

> > > No, I think it pretty obvious they ARE assertions. Opinions
> > usually start out with "I think", or "IMO" or one of the many
> > variations.

> > May I ask you to 'prove' your 'assertion' that my opinions
> > are 'assertions'?
>
> No problem:
>
> Main Entry: as·sert
> Pronunciation: &-'s&rt, a-
> Function: transitive verb
> Etymology: Latin assertus, past participle of asserere, from ad-

+

> serere to join -- more at SERIES
> Date: circa 1604
> 1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or
> aggressively

BIG problem. So you're trapped--just notice it?? I asked

for 'proof'

not a definition of a word.

ROTFLMAO. He asked for proof. He got proof. Now he will babble ...
almost assuredly.

Even with it, you're rendered useless.
My 'assertions' are strongly believed opinions. Just as I've always
said. Shoulda looked it up loooong ago little dicky. The egg on

your

face is never gonna dry!

Need I say more.

> > And may I ask you to 'support with fact' that
> > your 'assertion' "usually starts out with 'I think' or IMO'" is
an absolute....or, as you so nobly provided in your escape route--
> > 'pretty obvious'? Go ahead--don't rush. You've got nothing but
time to figure it out.
>
> Once again, no problem
>
> Main Entry: opin·ion
> Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-

,

> opinio, from opinari
> Date: 14th century
> 1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a
> particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
> 2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than

positive

> knowledge b : a generally held view

BIGGER problem! So where's the word 'assertion' in there, huh Mr.
Wizard??

It's the definition of opinion, moron. You are frazzled now, aren't
you. It demonstrates the exact difference between assertion and
opinion that I've been stating. It also makes you look foolish.

Even the crutch of using the DICTIONARY can't get you out of
this one, so the only out you have now is to backpeddal. But watch
out? I'll even cut you off at the pass when you do THAT!

Did I mention babbling? What happened to that confidence that I just
totally deflated? Feeling a little impotent again, Robbie?

>Especially note "less strong than positive knowledge". Obviously,
this is NOT your style.

"Assertion"--One feels a strong possibility that the statement is
true. "Opinion"--Same premise, with not as strong a feeling.

Yup, that's what they mean. You're a little slow but I'm glad I was
able to educate you once again.

So your
assumption is that all my statements are now assertions--not

because

as you earlier stated, that my sentences don't begin with certain
words you pulled out of your butt, but because you now looked the
meanings up and you've selectively applied 'assertion' to me by way
of mind-reading. Do you actually realize how foolish you look with
the 'by slight of hand' slip-up?

Robbie still can't quit babbling. The words I "showed" you are just
the kind of words that differentiate strong feelings from not so
strong feelings. There are others, words
like "seem", "appears", "may", "could", etc. are all used quite often
when opinions are expressed.

> > > > simply because you have less knowledge of the facts than I
> > > > do.
> >
> > > Another assertion. And, to noone's surprise, with no

supporting

> > > evidence. Did I mention the monkey boy?
> >
> > May I ask you to support your "another assertion" with

supporting

> > evidence, little dicky? Or was it simply an 'opinion' that just
> > didn't begin with "I think" or "IMO"?? And who is 'noone'?
>
> Your use of "you have" is forceful and therefore meets the
definition of assertion.

So now you're selecting 'you have' as forceful?? HAHAHA!! Same goes
for your "Another assertion"! I'd continue laughing at you, but my
side is REALLY starting to hurt.

The old false bravado ... It doesn't work too well after I educated
you on the meaning of two simple words.

Also,
>
> Main Entry: no one
> Function: pronoun
> Date: before 12th century
> : no person : NOBODY

Wasn't Peter Noone of Herman's Hermits more famous than you too?

RIV.

#15

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > > One of your big problems, little dicky, is you are the
> picture
> > > of inconsistency.
> > >
> > > > Well, another assertion, let's see what follows ...
> > >
> > > Just how dumb are you? Rather than straight out deny like you
> > > usually do, you call it exactly what it is--an
> assertion....better known as opinion in the non-geek world.
> >
> > Another assertion. Sorry, but the use of "is" in this case and
your
> > aggressive tone makes it an assertion. Evidently, the English
> > language is not one of your strong points.
>
> Then have a taste....support your assertion that I'm making an
> assertion. Go ahead little dicky. Show us your stuff!

Already done, if you had followed the advice you gave me in another
post and read the entire note, you could have avoided this
embarrassment.

So lets get this right. I 'opine', you call it an 'assertion', I
challenge you to prove your 'assertion', you come up with definitions
of the two words that show the only difference as being the degree of
belief by the opiner or asserter--which does not answer my challenge
at all because you 'opine' as to the degree of my belief in what I
say--and now you 'assert' you've already 'asserted' a response to
my 'assertion'! If a batter could have 4 strikes, you'd be the one.
   

> > > > > You could just as easily do your foolish dance on
> > > > > anyone's post anywhere. People either respect what I say

or

> > they love to hate it.
> > > >
> > > > Translation: Robbie has no facts to back him up.
> > >
> > > Hmmmm....Avoiding the issue that makes you look odd once

again.

> >
> > Asserted lie.
>
> So I'm 'asserting' that you lied? Huh?

No, can't you read?

Is that an assertion, or an opinion??

> >I clearly stated that you have no facts.
>
> So prove that assertion--

No problem, but this is known as proof by tautology.

In other words, you GUESSED!

Everyone could

see you didn't provide a single fact. It's all there in black and
white. It would be different if you provided ANYTHING that you

could

claim was a fact, you didn't. QED.

> or, OK, I see you don't have the TIME to do
> so other than make another assertion. You're your own worst enemy!

Once again little Robbie comes out looking at a fool.

I guess there's no defense for ANYONE against a guy who's his own
worst enemy.

>
> >I believe that is taking the issue straight on. Do you or don't
you
> any facts to back up your statement?
>
> Absolutely. So YOU'RE the asserted liar that you've been talking
> about!

This isn't even a good try. If you have facts, then present them.

No try intended. Fact is fact. You're an asserted liar who has no
facts.

>
> > > Maybe you're waiting for your pal to come on and praise you??
Or
> > > maybe you're just too rattled to put a meaningful set of

words

> > > together. Either way, whenever you're called upon to defend
your
> > > position of inconsistency, you dodge the issue. Very odd.....
> >
> > RIV. I think "rattled" is the key word here. It appears Rob

just

> > cannot handle the truth when it is force fed to him on every

post.

>
> What'sa matter little dicky? Too rattled to come up with

something I didn't say?? Poor baby....Very odd.

RIV.

Poor baby.....

>
> > > > > The ones who respect it know I'm reliable because I've

done

> > > > > my homework in most cases, and what I've uncovered cannot
be
> > > > displayed on a public forum regardless of how much you long
for
> > > your 'facts'.
> > >
> > > > I think I'd count them in the "sucker" category myself.
> > > The "inside info" line is a dead giveaway of a con.
> > >
> > > You display a wide array of inexperience here, as usual.
> >
> > Asserted lie.
>
> Support that with documented evidence.

Already done. Rob's embarrassment continues ...

I'm WAITING.....

> >
> > > May I call your statement an 'assertion'
> >
> > No, the use of "I think" makes it an opinion.
>
> Wrong sentence. Selective. Try approaching it with your all-
> fact/straight-on mentality this time.

I did. You just didn't like the obvious answer.

Selective. Try again.

>
> > > and may I ask you to support it with 'facts'? (Throwin it

back

at
> you, little dicky---should've done you're homework again!).
> >
> > RIV. I won't bother looking up all the current scams.
>
> Translation: You have no idea what you're talking about. Is

anyone surprised??

>
> >I believe it is common knowledge that claims of inside knowledge
are
> often related to scams.
>
> Prove that assertion, or else you're a liar!

Not an assertion. Didn't you notice "I believe"? I guess not. When

I present an opinion like this I leave it up to the readers to agree
or disagree. I have confidence the vast majority will agree.

Lalalalala. Dancing around the bush is for sissys. First it's "I
think". then it's "IMO". Now he adds in "I believe" with a pile of
feel-good words written in such a nervous frenzy that even Rodan migh
miss them when he flies by.

> (STOP--You can't squirm
> out of this one either--"I believe" was not part of your escape
> route!!)! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

You make yourself look even more foolish by attempting to bend the
English language, which we all understand, to mean something
different. I can only imagine the frustration you must be feeling

to try such an idiotic approach.

HAHA! 'Bending the language'? Who's the goofball that's resorted to
having to look up almost every word because he never knew the meaning
of them?? You are proving yourself to be so uneducated in street
smarts as well as schooling that I'm officially overly embarrassed to
be making you look like such an imbecile. But I chill....and smile.

> > > > inserted 'assertions' are opinions
>
> > > > No, I think it pretty obvious they ARE assertions. Opinions
> > > usually start out with "I think", or "IMO" or one of the many
> > > variations.
>
> > > May I ask you to 'prove' your 'assertion' that my opinions
> > > are 'assertions'?
> >
> > No problem:
> >
> > Main Entry: as·sert
> > Pronunciation: &-'s&rt, a-
> > Function: transitive verb
> > Etymology: Latin assertus, past participle of asserere, from ad-

+
> > serere to join -- more at SERIES
> > Date: circa 1604
> > 1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or
> > aggressively
>
> BIG problem. So you're trapped--just notice it?? I asked
for 'proof' not a definition of a word.

ROTFLMAO. He asked for proof. He got proof. Now he will babble ...
almost assuredly.

Oh I see. i got proof that you can look up the BIG words! Hee-Haw!!
Look that one up.

> Even with it, you're rendered useless.
> My 'assertions' are strongly believed opinions. Just as I've

always

> said. Shoulda looked it up loooong ago little dicky. The egg on
your
> face is never gonna dry!

Need I say more.

Why? The more you say the dumber you look.

>
> > > And may I ask you to 'support with fact' that
> > > your 'assertion' "usually starts out with 'I think' or IMO'"

is

> an absolute....or, as you so nobly provided in your escape route--
> > > 'pretty obvious'? Go ahead--don't rush. You've got nothing

but

> time to figure it out.
> >
> > Once again, no problem
> >
> > Main Entry: opin·ion
> > Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
> > Function: noun
> > Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin

opinion-

,
> > opinio, from opinari
> > Date: 14th century
> > 1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a
> > particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
> > 2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than
positive
> > knowledge b : a generally held view
>
> BIGGER problem! So where's the word 'assertion' in there, huh Mr.
> Wizard??

It's the definition of opinion, moron. You are frazzled now, aren't
you. It demonstrates the exact difference between assertion and
opinion that I've been stating. It also makes you look foolish.

Oh, I get it--in geek of course. Now that you understand the words
you've been tossing around for a few weeks, you're operating under
ASSUMPTIONS (at least for the time being, until I tear that defensive
wall down just as I did with this one here). It is you who decides if
it's a opinion or assertion depending on the amount of hurt I apply
to you. Ahhhh.....I'm liking this.

> Even the crutch of using the DICTIONARY can't get you out of
> this one, so the only out you have now is to backpeddal. But

watch out? I'll even cut you off at the pass when you do THAT!

Did I mention babbling? What happened to that confidence that I

just totally deflated? Feeling a little impotent again, Robbie?

Looks like I didn't even have to cut you off at the pass.
Remember 'you're your own worst enemy"? It just struck again.

>
> >Especially note "less strong than positive knowledge".

Obviously,

> this is NOT your style.
>
> "Assertion"--One feels a strong possibility that the statement is
> true. "Opinion"--Same premise, with not as strong a feeling.

Yup, that's what they mean. You're a little slow but I'm glad I was
able to educate you once again.

And WHO's the bozo that had to look them up to figure out what they
meant? WHO was that student of the arts??

> So your
> assumption is that all my statements are now assertions--not
because
> as you earlier stated, that my sentences don't begin with certain
> words you pulled out of your butt, but because you now looked the
> meanings up and you've selectively applied 'assertion' to me by

way

> of mind-reading. Do you actually realize how foolish you look

with

> the 'by slight of hand' slip-up?

Robbie still can't quit babbling. The words I "showed" you are just
the kind of words that differentiate strong feelings from not so
strong feelings. There are others, words
like "seem", "appears", "may", "could", etc. are all used quite

often when opinions are expressed.

Uh-Oh, I didn't see those words identified in the definitions either.
Making things up on the fly, are we.....Desperate times require
desperate measures!

>
> > > > > simply because you have less knowledge of the facts than

I

> > > > > do.
> > >
> > > > Another assertion. And, to noone's surprise, with no
supporting
> > > > evidence. Did I mention the monkey boy?
> > >
> > > May I ask you to support your "another assertion" with
supporting
> > > evidence, little dicky? Or was it simply an 'opinion' that

just

> > > didn't begin with "I think" or "IMO"?? And who is 'noone'?
> >
> > Your use of "you have" is forceful and therefore meets the
> definition of assertion.
>
> So now you're selecting 'you have' as forceful?? HAHAHA!! Same

goes

> for your "Another assertion"! I'd continue laughing at you, but

my

> side is REALLY starting to hurt.

The old false bravado ... It doesn't work too well after I educated
you on the meaning of two simple words.

Why don't you just give up now while you're behind. I'm feeling too
guilty about chopping you down to little boy size again. You need to
look up simple words, then when confronted with how they're supposed
to be used you make up tag-along words, then when exposed for the
boob that you are for making things up as you go you
start 'asserting' wildly. Have you no dignity??

>
> Also,
> >
> > Main Entry: no one
> > Function: pronoun
> > Date: before 12th century
> > : no person : NOBODY
>
> Wasn't Peter Noone of Herman's Hermits more famous than you too?

RIV.

Don't tell me you've never heard of the guy!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#16

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > > > One of your big problems, little dicky, is you are the
> > picture
> > > > of inconsistency.
> > > >
> > > > > Well, another assertion, let's see what follows ...
> > > >
> > > > Just how dumb are you? Rather than straight out deny like

you

> > > > usually do, you call it exactly what it is--an
> > assertion....better known as opinion in the non-geek world.
> > >
> > > Another assertion. Sorry, but the use of "is" in this case

and

> your
> > > aggressive tone makes it an assertion. Evidently, the English
> > > language is not one of your strong points.
> >
> > Then have a taste....support your assertion that I'm making an
> > assertion. Go ahead little dicky. Show us your stuff!
>
> Already done, if you had followed the advice you gave me in

another

> post and read the entire note, you could have avoided this
> embarrassment.

So lets get this right. I 'opine', you call it an 'assertion', I
challenge you to prove your 'assertion', you come up with

definitions

of the two words that show the only difference as being the degree

of

belief by the opiner or asserter--

Yup, that's called proof. Proof by definition.

which does not answer my challenge
at all because you 'opine' as to the degree of my belief in what I
say--

No, I simply go by the words that you use. If you can't properly use
the English language, that is your problem.

and now you 'assert' you've already 'asserted' a response to
my 'assertion'! If a batter could have 4 strikes, you'd be the one.

LMAO. Rob's embarrassment continues.

> > > > > > You could just as easily do your foolish dance on
> > > > > > anyone's post anywhere. People either respect what I

say

or
> > > they love to hate it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation: Robbie has no facts to back him up.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmmm....Avoiding the issue that makes you look odd once
again.
> > >
> > > Asserted lie.
> >
> > So I'm 'asserting' that you lied? Huh?
>
> No, can't you read?

Is that an assertion, or an opinion??

A question. This is really getting funny.

>
> > >I clearly stated that you have no facts.
> >
> > So prove that assertion--
>
> No problem, but this is known as proof by tautology.

In other words, you GUESSED!

2 : true by virtue of its logical form alone

Everyone could
> see you didn't provide a single fact. It's all there in black and
> white. It would be different if you provided ANYTHING that you
could
> claim was a fact, you didn't. QED.
>
> > or, OK, I see you don't have the TIME to do
> > so other than make another assertion. You're your own worst

enemy!

>
> Once again little Robbie comes out looking at a fool.

I guess there's no defense for ANYONE against a guy who's his own
worst enemy.

RIV.

>
> >
> > >I believe that is taking the issue straight on. Do you or

don't

> you
> > any facts to back up your statement?
> >
> > Absolutely. So YOU'RE the asserted liar that you've been

talking

> > about!
>
> This isn't even a good try. If you have facts, then present them.

No try intended. Fact is fact. You're an asserted liar who has no
facts.

RIV.

>
> >
> > > > Maybe you're waiting for your pal to come on and praise

you??

> Or
> > > > maybe you're just too rattled to put a meaningful set of
words
> > > > together. Either way, whenever you're called upon to defend
> your
> > > > position of inconsistency, you dodge the issue. Very

odd.....

> > >
> > > RIV. I think "rattled" is the key word here. It appears Rob
just
> > > cannot handle the truth when it is force fed to him on every
post.
> >
> > What'sa matter little dicky? Too rattled to come up with
something I didn't say?? Poor baby....Very odd.
>
> RIV.

Poor baby.....

RIV.

>
> >
> > > > > > The ones who respect it know I'm reliable because I've
done
> > > > > > my homework in most cases, and what I've uncovered

cannot

> be
> > > > > displayed on a public forum regardless of how much you

long

> for
> > > > your 'facts'.
> > > >
> > > > > I think I'd count them in the "sucker" category myself.
> > > > The "inside info" line is a dead giveaway of a con.
> > > >
> > > > You display a wide array of inexperience here, as usual.
> > >
> > > Asserted lie.
> >
> > Support that with documented evidence.
>
> Already done. Rob's embarrassment continues ...

I'm WAITING.....

You're the only one. It must be lonely on embarrassment blvd ...

>
> > >
> > > > May I call your statement an 'assertion'
> > >
> > > No, the use of "I think" makes it an opinion.
> >
> > Wrong sentence. Selective. Try approaching it with your all-
> > fact/straight-on mentality this time.
>
> I did. You just didn't like the obvious answer.

Selective. Try again.

No need. The facts have been presented.

>
> >
> > > > and may I ask you to support it with 'facts'? (Throwin it
back
> at
> > you, little dicky---should've done you're homework again!).
> > >
> > > RIV. I won't bother looking up all the current scams.
> >
> > Translation: You have no idea what you're talking about. Is
anyone surprised??
> >
> > >I believe it is common knowledge that claims of inside

knowledge

> are
> > often related to scams.
> >
> > Prove that assertion, or else you're a liar!
>
> Not an assertion. Didn't you notice "I believe"? I guess not.

When

I present an opinion like this I leave it up to the readers to

agree

or disagree. I have confidence the vast majority will agree.

Lalalalala. Dancing around the bush is for sissys. First it's "I
think". then it's "IMO". Now he adds in "I believe" with a pile of
feel-good words written in such a nervous frenzy that even Rodan

migh

miss them when he flies by.

It appears the embarrassment has led to the ever present babbling.
Who'd of thunk?

>
> > (STOP--You can't squirm
> > out of this one either--"I believe" was not part of your escape
> > route!!)! HAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> You make yourself look even more foolish by attempting to bend

the

> English language, which we all understand, to mean something
> different. I can only imagine the frustration you must be feeling
to try such an idiotic approach.

HAHA! 'Bending the language'? Who's the goofball that's resorted to
having to look up almost every word because he never knew the

meaning

of them??

I already "knew" the meaning as was obvious from the definition. Your
attempt to save face is as obvious as it gets.

You are proving yourself to be so uneducated in street
smarts as well as schooling that I'm officially overly embarrassed

to

be making you look like such an imbecile. But I chill....and smile.

RIV.

>
> > > > > inserted 'assertions' are opinions
> >
> > > > > No, I think it pretty obvious they ARE assertions.

Opinions

> > > > usually start out with "I think", or "IMO" or one of the

many

> > > > variations.
> >
> > > > May I ask you to 'prove' your 'assertion' that my opinions
> > > > are 'assertions'?
> > >
> > > No problem:
> > >
> > > Main Entry: as·sert
> > > Pronunciation: &-'s&rt, a-
> > > Function: transitive verb
> > > Etymology: Latin assertus, past participle of asserere, from

ad-

> +
> > > serere to join -- more at SERIES
> > > Date: circa 1604
> > > 1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or
> > > aggressively
> >
> > BIG problem. So you're trapped--just notice it?? I asked
> for 'proof' not a definition of a word.
>
> ROTFLMAO. He asked for proof. He got proof. Now he will

babble ...

> almost assuredly.

Oh I see. i got proof that you can look up the BIG words! Hee-Haw!!
Look that one up.

A good word to describe what you must be feeling.

>
> > Even with it, you're rendered useless.
> > My 'assertions' are strongly believed opinions. Just as I've
always
> > said. Shoulda looked it up loooong ago little dicky. The egg on
> your
> > face is never gonna dry!
>
> Need I say more.

Why? The more you say the dumber you look.

RIV.

>
> >
> > > > And may I ask you to 'support with fact' that
> > > > your 'assertion' "usually starts out with 'I think' or

IMO'"

is
> > an absolute....or, as you so nobly provided in your escape

route--

> > > > 'pretty obvious'? Go ahead--don't rush. You've got nothing
but
> > time to figure it out.
> > >
> > > Once again, no problem
> > >
> > > Main Entry: opin·ion
> > > Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
> > > Function: noun
> > > Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin
opinion-
> ,
> > > opinio, from opinari
> > > Date: 14th century
> > > 1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about

a

> > > particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
> > > 2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than
> positive
> > > knowledge b : a generally held view
> >
> > BIGGER problem! So where's the word 'assertion' in there, huh

Mr.

> > Wizard??
>
> It's the definition of opinion, moron. You are frazzled now,

aren't

> you. It demonstrates the exact difference between assertion and
> opinion that I've been stating. It also makes you look foolish.

Oh, I get it--in geek of course. Now that you understand the words
you've been tossing around for a few weeks, you're operating under
ASSUMPTIONS (at least for the time being, until I tear that

defensive

wall down just as I did with this one here). It is you who decides

if

it's a opinion or assertion depending on the amount of hurt I apply
to you.

I use the words as they are defined ... just as I've claimed all
along. I think this little thread has pointed out very clearly the
depths Robbie will go to in order to protect his ego. LMAO.

Ahhhh.....I'm liking this.

Of course you are ...

>
> > Even the crutch of using the DICTIONARY can't get you out of
> > this one, so the only out you have now is to backpeddal. But
watch out? I'll even cut you off at the pass when you do THAT!
>
> Did I mention babbling? What happened to that confidence that I
just totally deflated? Feeling a little impotent again, Robbie?

Looks like I didn't even have to cut you off at the pass.
Remember 'you're your own worst enemy"? It just struck again.

RIV.

>
> >
> > >Especially note "less strong than positive knowledge".
Obviously,
> > this is NOT your style.
> >
> > "Assertion"--One feels a strong possibility that the statement

is

> > true. "Opinion"--Same premise, with not as strong a feeling.
>
> Yup, that's what they mean. You're a little slow but I'm glad I

was

> able to educate you once again.

And WHO's the bozo that had to look them up to figure out what they
meant?

I displayed them to educate you. I used them correctly all along. So,
I guess we all know who the "Bozo" is ...

WHO was that student of the arts??

No one. Do you revel in your embarrassment?

>
> > So your
> > assumption is that all my statements are now assertions--not
> because
> > as you earlier stated, that my sentences don't begin with

certain

> > words you pulled out of your butt, but because you now looked

the

> > meanings up and you've selectively applied 'assertion' to me by
way
> > of mind-reading. Do you actually realize how foolish you look
with
> > the 'by slight of hand' slip-up?
>
> Robbie still can't quit babbling. The words I "showed" you are

just

> the kind of words that differentiate strong feelings from not so
> strong feelings. There are others, words
> like "seem", "appears", "may", "could", etc. are all used quite
often when opinions are expressed.

Uh-Oh, I didn't see those words identified in the definitions

either.

Making things up on the fly, are we.....Desperate times require
desperate measures!

Just the facts, as usual.

>
> >
> > > > > > simply because you have less knowledge of the facts

than

I
> > > > > > do.
> > > >
> > > > > Another assertion. And, to noone's surprise, with no
> supporting
> > > > > evidence. Did I mention the monkey boy?
> > > >
> > > > May I ask you to support your "another assertion" with
> supporting
> > > > evidence, little dicky? Or was it simply an 'opinion' that
just
> > > > didn't begin with "I think" or "IMO"?? And who is 'noone'?
> > >
> > > Your use of "you have" is forceful and therefore meets the
> > definition of assertion.
> >
> > So now you're selecting 'you have' as forceful?? HAHAHA!! Same
goes
> > for your "Another assertion"! I'd continue laughing at you, but
my
> > side is REALLY starting to hurt.
>
> The old false bravado ... It doesn't work too well after I

educated

> you on the meaning of two simple words.

Why don't you just give up now while you're behind.

RIV.

I'm feeling too
guilty about chopping you down to little boy size again. You need

to

look up simple words, then when confronted with how they're

supposed

to be used you make up tag-along words, then when exposed for the
boob that you are for making things up as you go you
start 'asserting' wildly. Have you no dignity??

RIV. It doesn't get any better than this.

>
> >
> > Also,
> > >
> > > Main Entry: no one
> > > Function: pronoun
> > > Date: before 12th century
> > > : no person : NOBODY
> >
> > Wasn't Peter Noone of Herman's Hermits more famous than you too?
>
> RIV.

Don't tell me you've never heard of the guy!

I didn't say that. I simply indicated he was "more famous than you
too". I always liked Herman's hermits. What about Jimmie Noone?

#17

> So lets get this right. I 'opine', you call it an 'assertion', I
> challenge you to prove your 'assertion', you come up with
definitions of the two words that show the only difference as being

the degree of belief by the opiner or asserter--

Yup, that's called proof. Proof by definition.

Correct....if your goal was to prove the definition of the WORDS you
like to use. But that's why you're now trapped. For a moment, you get
a reprieve...then you read below.

> which does not answer my challenge
> at all because you 'opine' as to the degree of my belief in what

I say--

No, I simply go by the words that you use. If you can't properly

use the English language, that is your problem.

That would be fine too, except for the minor detail you HAD to leave
out. You have no idea to what degree of being positive any of my
statements are--all you can do is guess and insert whichever word or
set of words you feel is the right flavor. All that 'proves' is
you've chosen to guess because you don't know. I agree I'm usually
right-on when it comes to belittling you and glorifying me as
compared to you. Still, you have no real clue until I opine.

> and now you 'assert' you've already 'asserted' a response to
> my 'assertion'! If a batter could have 4 strikes, you'd be the

one.

LMAO. Rob's embarrassment continues.

That's it--the record! 5 STRIKES!!!!!
    

> > > > > > > You could just as easily do your foolish dance on
> > > > > > > anyone's post anywhere. People either respect what I
say
> or
> > > > they love to hate it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Translation: Robbie has no facts to back him up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmmm....Avoiding the issue that makes you look odd once
> again.
> > > >
> > > > Asserted lie.
> > >
> > > So I'm 'asserting' that you lied? Huh?
> >
> > No, can't you read?
>
> Is that an assertion, or an opinion??

A question. This is really getting funny.

What's the question--and are you asserting or opining it??

> >
> > > >I clearly stated that you have no facts.
> > >
> > > So prove that assertion--
> >
> > No problem, but this is known as proof by tautology.
>
> In other words, you GUESSED!

2 : true by virtue of its logical form alone

???

>
> Everyone could
> > see you didn't provide a single fact. It's all there in black

and

> > white. It would be different if you provided ANYTHING that you
> could
> > claim was a fact, you didn't. QED.
> >
> > > or, OK, I see you don't have the TIME to do
> > > so other than make another assertion. You're your own worst
enemy!
> >
> > Once again little Robbie comes out looking at a fool.
>
> I guess there's no defense for ANYONE against a guy who's his own
> worst enemy.

RIV.

RIP. And that's an assertion that's made to be inserted!

> > > >I believe that is taking the issue straight on. Do you or
don't
> > you
> > > any facts to back up your statement?
> > >
> > > Absolutely. So YOU'RE the asserted liar that you've been
talking
> > > about!
> >
> > This isn't even a good try. If you have facts, then present

them.

>
> No try intended. Fact is fact. You're an asserted liar who has no
> facts.

RIV.

RIP.
  
I just looked at your next 10 replies---all riv. Are you THAT
defeated? You're not being any fun here any more!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#18

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > So lets get this right. I 'opine', you call it an 'assertion',

I

> > challenge you to prove your 'assertion', you come up with
> definitions of the two words that show the only difference as

being

the degree of belief by the opiner or asserter--

> Yup, that's called proof. Proof by definition.

Correct....if your goal was to prove the definition of the WORDS

you

like to use.

Yup. That was the goal. Did you forget the original question? You
claimed what you constantly do wasn't assertions. I proved it was.
It's really very simple.

But that's why you're now trapped. For a moment, you get
a reprieve...then you read below.

Asserted lie.

> > which does not answer my challenge
> > at all because you 'opine' as to the degree of my belief in

what

I say--
>
> No, I simply go by the words that you use. If you can't properly
use the English language, that is your problem.

That would be fine too, except for the minor detail you HAD to

leave

out. You have no idea to what degree of being positive any of my
statements are--

It's called communication skills. If you say something one way, but
mean it another way ... that's YOUR problem. I can only go by the
words you use.

all you can do is guess and insert whichever word or
set of words you feel is the right flavor.

It has nothing to do with "guess"ing. It has everything to do with
the words you use. I think most of us understand the English language
well enough to see through this rather poor attempt to save face.

All that 'proves' is
you've chosen to guess because you don't know.

Asserted lie.

I agree I'm usually
right-on when it comes to belittling you and glorifying me as
compared to you. Still, you have no real clue until I opine.

RIV.

> > and now you 'assert' you've already 'asserted' a response to
> > my 'assertion'! If a batter could have 4 strikes, you'd be the
one.
>
> LMAO. Rob's embarrassment continues.

That's it--the record! 5 STRIKES!!!!!

RIV.

> > > > > > > > You could just as easily do your foolish dance on
> > > > > > > > anyone's post anywhere. People either respect what

I

> say
> > or
> > > > > they love to hate it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Translation: Robbie has no facts to back him up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmmm....Avoiding the issue that makes you look odd

once

> > again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Asserted lie.
> > > >
> > > > So I'm 'asserting' that you lied? Huh?
> > >
> > > No, can't you read?
> >
> > Is that an assertion, or an opinion??
>
> A question. This is really getting funny.

What's the question--

"can't you read?"

and are you asserting or opining it??

Are you really this stupid?

>
> > >
> > > > >I clearly stated that you have no facts.
> > > >
> > > > So prove that assertion--
> > >
> > > No problem, but this is known as proof by tautology.
> >
> > In other words, you GUESSED!
>
> 2 : true by virtue of its logical form alone

???

It's called a definitions. Can we send Rob back to first grade and
let him try again?

>
> >
> > Everyone could
> > > see you didn't provide a single fact. It's all there in black
and
> > > white. It would be different if you provided ANYTHING that

you

> > could
> > > claim was a fact, you didn't. QED.
> > >
> > > > or, OK, I see you don't have the TIME to do
> > > > so other than make another assertion. You're your own worst
> enemy!
> > >
> > > Once again little Robbie comes out looking at a fool.
> >
> > I guess there's no defense for ANYONE against a guy who's his

own

> > worst enemy.
>
> RIV.

RIP. And that's an assertion that's made to be inserted!

Rob's Inner Pest ... still works for me.

> > > > >I believe that is taking the issue straight on. Do you or
> don't
> > > you
> > > > any facts to back up your statement?
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely. So YOU'RE the asserted liar that you've been
> talking
> > > > about!
> > >
> > > This isn't even a good try. If you have facts, then present
them.
> >
> > No try intended. Fact is fact. You're an asserted liar who has

no

> > facts.
>
> RIV.

RIP.

Still works for me.

I just looked at your next 10 replies---all riv. Are you THAT
defeated?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

You're not being any fun here any more!

Just the facts, as usual. If you don't like the FACT that your rants
are all directed at yourself, then that is a problem you need to take
up with professional help. Did you make that appointment yet?

#19

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > So lets get this right. I 'opine', you call it

an 'assertion',

I
> > > challenge you to prove your 'assertion', you come up with
> > definitions of the two words that show the only difference as
being
> the degree of belief by the opiner or asserter--
>
> > Yup, that's called proof. Proof by definition.
>
> Correct....if your goal was to prove the definition of the WORDS
you like to use.

Yup. That was the goal. Did you forget the original question? You
claimed what you constantly do wasn't assertions. I proved it was.
It's really very simple.

> But that's why you're now trapped. For a moment, you get
> a reprieve...then you read below.

Asserted lie.

In a moment you're gonna be so ruffled that I'll have you start
looking up every word here--just to give you a warm, fuzzy that you
can hide behind...but as we've seen that only lasts so long.....

> > > which does not answer my challenge
> > > at all because you 'opine' as to the degree of my belief in
what I say--
> >
> > No, I simply go by the words that you use. If you can't

properly

> use the English language, that is your problem.

> That would be fine too, except for the minor detail you HAD to
leave out. You have no idea to what degree of being positive any of

my statements are--

It's called communication skills. If you say something one way, but
mean it another way ... that's YOUR problem. I can only go by the
words you use.

Now you're admitting to assuming what I meant. Is that what they
teach geeks? In other words, you're a guesser! Then you put together
a defense based on guessing and assuming things. Very good...for 3rd
grade!

> all you can do is guess and insert whichever word or
> set of words you feel is the right flavor.

It has nothing to do with "guess"ing. It has everything to do with
the words you use. I think most of us understand the English

language well enough to see through this rather poor attempt to save
face.

Try again. You just stubbed your toe on the truth as you spewed your
nonsense. Happens every time.

> All that 'proves' is
> you've chosen to guess because you don't know.

Asserted lie.

> I agree I'm usually
> right-on when it comes to belittling you and glorifying me as
> compared to you. Still, you have no real clue until I opine.

RIV.

Another compliment?

> > > and now you 'assert' you've already 'asserted' a response to
> > > my 'assertion'! If a batter could have 4 strikes, you'd be

the

> one.
> >
> > LMAO. Rob's embarrassment continues.
>
> That's it--the record! 5 STRIKES!!!!!

RIV.

RIP.

> I just looked at your next 10 replies---all riv. Are you THAT
> defeated?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

> You're not being any fun here any more!

Just the facts, as usual. If you don't like the FACT that your

rants are all directed at yourself, then that is a problem you need
to take up with professional help. Did you make that appointment yet?

That's odd. I directed my posts towards you. Who else is as stupid as
you to be so belittled and stomped on??

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#20

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > So lets get this right. I 'opine', you call it
an 'assertion',
> I
> > > > challenge you to prove your 'assertion', you come up with
> > > definitions of the two words that show the only difference as
> being
> > the degree of belief by the opiner or asserter--
> >
> > > Yup, that's called proof. Proof by definition.
> >
> > Correct....if your goal was to prove the definition of the

WORDS

> you like to use.
>
> Yup. That was the goal. Did you forget the original question? You
> claimed what you constantly do wasn't assertions. I proved it

was.

> It's really very simple.
>
> > But that's why you're now trapped. For a moment, you get
> > a reprieve...then you read below.
>
> Asserted lie.

In a moment you're gonna be so ruffled that I'll have you start
looking up every word here--just to give you a warm, fuzzy that you
can hide behind...but as we've seen that only lasts so long.....

RIV.

> > > > which does not answer my challenge
> > > > at all because you 'opine' as to the degree of my belief in
> what I say--
> > >
> > > No, I simply go by the words that you use. If you can't
properly
> > use the English language, that is your problem.

> > That would be fine too, except for the minor detail you HAD to
> leave out. You have no idea to what degree of being positive any

of

my statements are--

> It's called communication skills. If you say something one way,

but

> mean it another way ... that's YOUR problem. I can only go by the
> words you use.

Now you're admitting to assuming what I meant.

I guess Rob must think that mind reading is a skill everyone possess.
This is getting hilarious. He can't stop, even in the face of clear
and concise logic.

Is that what they
teach geeks? In other words, you're a guesser! Then you put

together

a defense based on guessing and assuming things. Very good...for

3rd

grade!

This truly is amazing. It appears Robbie really thinks this was a
good response. I guess that little tidbit about "communications
skills" slipped right by him.

>
> > all you can do is guess and insert whichever word or
> > set of words you feel is the right flavor.
>
> It has nothing to do with "guess"ing. It has everything to do

with

> the words you use. I think most of us understand the English
language well enough to see through this rather poor attempt to

save

face.

Try again. You just stubbed your toe on the truth as you spewed

your

nonsense. Happens every time.

RIV. Your inner self can see exactly what is transpiring. You really
should go get help.

>
> > All that 'proves' is
> > you've chosen to guess because you don't know.
>
> Asserted lie.
>
> > I agree I'm usually
> > right-on when it comes to belittling you and glorifying me as
> > compared to you. Still, you have no real clue until I opine.
>
> RIV.

Another compliment?

No, I haven't seen your inner voice heaping any compliments on you.
In fact, it portrays you as the village idiot.

> > > > and now you 'assert' you've already 'asserted' a response

to

> > > > my 'assertion'! If a batter could have 4 strikes, you'd be
the
> > one.
> > >
> > > LMAO. Rob's embarrassment continues.
> >
> > That's it--the record! 5 STRIKES!!!!!
>
> RIV.

RIP.

Yes, I can see why you'd call it a pest. Go get help.

> > I just looked at your next 10 replies---all riv. Are you THAT
> > defeated?

> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>
> > You're not being any fun here any more!
>
> Just the facts, as usual. If you don't like the FACT that your
rants are all directed at yourself, then that is a problem you need
to take up with professional help. Did you make that appointment

yet?

That's odd. I directed my posts towards you. Who else is as stupid

as

you to be so belittled and stomped on??

RIV. And he can't even see it. Did RIV mention the village idiot?