I finally can't take it anymore. I owe every headbutter here an apology.
I, johnhp, formerly of hyde park LIED !! Intentionally!!
My ego was so huge, I couldn't take the idea of losing an argument to Campaigner, so I copied the reference.thesaurus.com entry and inserted "plot" when it was not there. Then I claimed it was from some dictionary in my office that I lost track of.
There you have it.
Everyone, please forgive me for being such a pathetic fraud !!!
signed,
johnhp
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nice picture BaGua Monk ,,but could you edit the picture out or make it samller..It makes the thread hard to read... My board is not as sopishticated as News rake....
Thank you
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Actually I save the picture on my computer and try to e-mail it to my self and at some point you will be given an option to make the picture smaller, so it's not such a big file to e-mail...then you copy the smaller picture.
I think that is how it works...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Malone, after you save the pic to your computer right click on it then click edit, click sketch skew to shrink to the size you want, then save it again. That's how I do it, don't know if that helps you or not.
This message has been edited by matilda2222 on Mar 4, 2010 5:01 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
i made my statement. Whoever made the statement is petty, a liar and a coward. It could be any of you.
Wait a minute, John. You are the guy who forged a dictionary entry in hopes of cheating on an anonymous Board of all places. How petty, lying, and cowardly would we have to be to rank up there with you?
And remember, the lying and cover-up are worse than the actual act.
Your only credential for accusing anybody of being petty, a liar, and coward is that you have excelled us all in each of those categories. The difference between any honest mistakes that you can point to . . . and the dirty, stinking, dishonest forgery you tried to perpetrate -- and got caught red-handed -- is that you are worse than anybody on the Board.
You must really feel crummy to hate the rest of us so much and then watch us make merry over the dumbest thing to ever happen on this Board since JC's neighbor telling him about $4.50 gasoline or whatever he was claiming.
But crummy or not, you brought it on yourself.
This message has been edited by Campaigner1 on Mar 5, 2010 8:33 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
If you had an ounce of integrity, or even one honest bone in your body, that's what you would say after seeing your own reflection in the mirror.
As everyone pointed out, the apology was obviously fake, but considering your penchant for faking dictionary entries, it's no surprise you can't tell the difference between a joke and a lie.
Here's how thesaurus.com describes "joke"
Main Entry: joke
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: fun, quip
Now, with the help of the FBI, CIA, ABC, NBC and CBS, i was able to find the "missing" dictionary in John's office. It says this:
Main Entry: joke
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a lie, fun, quip
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It seems a little needy and desperate to have to resort to fraud in order to "prove" an alleged fraud. Seems to me that if you people had the goods on John you wouldn't have to do this.
This message has been edited by whathisname on Mar 6, 2010 12:23 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nobody resorted to fraud. The initial post in this thread was satiric. It was identified as such in the first response to it. We generally regaled one another with the reasons we knew the first post was NOT John's.
If you can't accept that, tell you what: Why not threaten to sue us again for doing something you didn't like on an anonymous Board.
That'll be rich!
Ooops, I forgot: you already threatened that once. . . .
This message has been edited by Campaigner1 on Mar 6, 2010 3:06 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
i have been accused of plagiarism. That idiot has withdrawn.
Now fraud. Fraud requires an untruth (not one to be found) for personal gain (none) or personal damage (there was damage caused by my truthful statement).
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Sorry Campaigner but I've already told you that I've used my best material on you people. I mean I'd love to make you all soil your underpants and have panic attacks again, but one can only go to the well so many times even with marks wound up as tight as you.
I am content to stand on my past victories.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Bags was going under a different name back then but, just as today, he was incapable of writing posts that stand on their own two feet. I don't believe he was referring himself as a "respected professional" but he clearly thought being a lawyer was enough to make that point.
And he made it practically every time he posted. Then one night, he got sick of being bested by all the non-lawyers on the Board. So he threatened to sue the anonymous Board and have us all hauled into court and deliver up our screen names and real names and ever so many other things.
We threw him off the Board. He came back whining about how an admittedly bad joke misfired and how he hadn't meant what he had threatened. I don't recall all the details of that incident but it seems to me that Matilda had to throw him off several times under different names before he got the message. Even then, he never really went away.
Yeah, he admits this was his best material and all the rest. But if his posts could have stood on their own two feet, which, let's face it, his can't, he would have been content to threaten everybody forever.
He just recently offered his version of how fraud was used to prove a fraud. . . and John just debunked his theory by defining fraud in such a way as to prove that he hadn't defrauded anybody of anything. These boys should get their acts together and go on the road.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You dissemble. No one denied that the first post on this thread was fraudulent. What was shown was that it did not demonstrate fraudulent activity on my part.
You ahouls really learn some comprehension skills.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You dissemble. No one denied that the first post on this thread was fraudulent.
No, you dissemble. The first four posts by regular Headbutters, (i.e., excluding you, John), pointed out that the initial thread was not yours and each of us gave our reasons for thinking so. Significantly, most of those reasons hung on your signature lack of integrity.
What was shown was that it did not demonstrate fraudulent activity on my part.
Right, we can easily distinguish between fraudulent activity on your part and satire on anybody else's part. Your fraudulence consists of forgeries and false assertions on a scale which transcends anything that could be called an "honest mistake." Two examples come to mind: Your forgery that you tried to pass off as a dictionary or thesaurus entry and, oh yes, your bald assertion that the US government trusted Stalin in post-War dealings because, there was nothing about distrusting him in "the Intel Reports of the day."
No harm done on either count, though. Nobody believes a word you say or a post you write. You are an America-hating cretin who would do anything for socialism but live under it.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
See, John, this is why nobody has any respect . . .
No score for this post
March 7 2010, 4:58 PM
for you. Ooops, maybe I should have set that part about no respect up for you. But you do know that none of us has any respect for you, especially since that dictionary BS, don't you?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
But i couldn't care less what any of you half crazed loons think of me. Tell me again about the Amish lining up to lay down 500.00 to get their kids out of school or how no one had ever heard of basing infallibility on Luke, etc, etc. You and the rest of the right wing butters have demonstrated time and again that truth, quality, humor are all things beyond your grasp.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You and the rest of the right wing butters have demonstrated time and again that truth, quality, humor are all things beyond your grasp.
Well, thank God, the characteristics of conscience-sticken remorse when caught, the willingness to lie again and again about a transparent matter like the dictionaries, the willingness to try to sound authoritative about things like unread INTEL REPORTS of the early 1950s, etc haven't further deadened your lonely, desolate, uncomforted soul. If they had, you would have no place to go and pick fights.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"You and the rest of the right wing butters have demonstrated time and again that truth, quality, humor are all things beyond your grasp."
Since John doesn't seem to be here, I will answer for him:
Right, Bags, they just aren't respected professionals like us.
There, that should end the slur about us not having a sense of humor. Now, for the real test: $50.00 to the Headbutter who can offer up one single intentional, objectively funny thing ever said on ths Board by John.
Answer in this thread.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The key here is the word "intentional." I should note for the record that Bags is eligible for the award if he can locate the specified desideratum, that is, one, single, intentional, objectively funny thing John has ever said on this Board. And just to make it sporting, I will accept entries from Matilda's Board or Malone's.
Spelling errors don't count.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Still awaiting your monsignor? Or maybe it is the book that will "prove" something about Bernardin? Perhaps, yet again the secret name of Bishops who secretly, yet somehow, publicly agreed with you on infallibility? What about the Amish? The dogma on the shape of heavenly bodies? Your fear of a former screen name? What about your need to delete the content of my posts that merely quote you?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You have called us righties on our lack of humor so you want to be eligible for the prize if you turn in something you said here that was intentionally and objectively humorous.
Very well, you are eligible. If you have ever said anything funny, just quote it here on this thread and you will be in the running. Or, if you would like to say something intentionally and objectively funny today or in the near future, by all means submit it here and make it eligible.
Anything at all intentionally and objectively funny from you will be given special attention. Since you raised the issue of how the righties lack humor, we will be doubly edified to see you in action. I know I will.
Hint: remarks that have to be explained to be understood as funny are not eligible for the prize.
There you go, Johnnykins. Now get out there and give it your best shot. Remember the criterion: "Intentionally and objectively funny"
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
to have as your only goal in life to trash someone who posts on an internet b.s. board for no good reason other than the fact that that person is a "Liberal?"
What kind of person does this?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"to have as your only goal in life to trash someone who posts on an internet b.s. board for no good reason other than the fact that that person is a "Liberal?"
What kind of person does this?"
Sounds like you need a hug, big guy. Why don't you try hooking up with these folks?http://www.hugsforfree.org/
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Watch this poseur make all of these people run themselves backwards into a mattress in the wall. This is almost as funny as a Jackie Chan movie, with one exception- Jackie Chan's stunts are REAL
it is clear that you continue your misunderstanding of the meaning of words.
There may be some clinical deviation between what you did and forgery but in the common parliance, nobody who knows what you did will have any difficulty applying the word to your actions.
You represented a document as authentic when it was nothing more than your concoction added to the words of the original author.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
John gives yet another example of the lofty eminence from which he judges . . .
No score for this post
March 9 2010, 7:32 AM
the -- among other characteristics -- humor of Headbutters:
One thing is for sure: you are clinical deviance.
While it's got to be true that he and Bags are slapping their collective thighs over this, what passes for a sense of humor over there in their world?
Will they ever get past the,"I'm rubber, you're glue" stage? It is one thing for them to live there. It is another to criticize someone else's sense of humor from there.
Boring as it is, however, it's not as bad as what John did with the forgery he tried to perpetrate as a real dictionary entry.
We all know how bad that was by the fact that he is now electing to quibble about whether it was plagiarism or forgery.
You will note he tries to tell you what it wasn't rather than what it was. He does this for three reasons: 1) it stretches out the subject. 2) It may give him some legalistic way to be right on a small side issue and then pretend that the small side issue was the real one and not his attempted forgery and subsequent string of lies to cover it up. And 3), John is so lonely it hurts. This will keep yet another volley of posts flying and he can pretend his vicious and ****-stained view of the world has some value.
I used to think all John's fight-picking had something to do with a desire to fight. I was wrong. It is nothing more and nothing less than a desire to be sure he can still mean something to somebody even it's only by starting his posts with the salutation, "Madam."
I now realize that he may even be aware of the smothering mediocrity of his posting here. But to be known as "mediocre" is a small price to pay for being known at all. And that is what he's afraid of: Being unknown.
Therefore, he has carefully constructed a world in which he is one of those "respected professionals." A world, yes, in which the comings and goings and law-suit threatenings of Bags is a bigger deal than nothing, but his world nonetheless. He lives there and dishes out his "madams" and his "****-for-brains" as if they were a sign of originality or provocation.
In reality, the only provocation he has dished up here is via the lies he has to resort to in order to be noticed.
I refer to his Michelle Malkin vandalism, his libels on Rudy Giuliani, his claims to be conversant with INTEL REPORTS of the day when Biscuit showed that he never even read page one of such reports, and, of course, his forgery of a dictionary entry.
I realize the list is hardly exhaustive but it is all John's and it is all in response to his fear of being ignored and forgotten. Well, enough of this for now, John. Baggs is here. Go out and play with yet another respected professional misfit and sue somebody anonymous. There's a good boy. . .
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Bagua Monk: "to have as your only goal in life to trash someone who posts on an internet b.s. board for no good reason other than the fact that that person is a "Liberal?"
What kind of person does this?"
Mountain Stream: "Sounds like you need a hug, big guy. Why don't you try hooking up with these folkshttp://www.hugsforfree.org/"
Bagua Monk: Gee, thanks Mountain Stream but really I don't need any such thing from a man who would choose a screen name that reminds me of the name of a disposable douche product.
Instead why don't you actually live up to the "logic" thing that pretend to think you adhere to? That would be much better than your perpetual "John sucks" and "Liberals suck" repetition compulsion.
Don't you think?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/PersonalPhotos/1177286856.JPG)
.jpg?download)
