To Dave <ratboyy@hellsouth.net> the LIAR

See Dave, better known as ratboyy, can't even answer my legitimate question when he is confronted with it. Earlier in a previous thread ratboyy made the comment, that "he simply asked me a question about the educational purposes in which I was trading episodes". He tried to make himself look like a perfect angel. However, if anyone of you goes and reads the "Original" thread that I posted, Mr. Ratboyy was the first one to respond by saying this, and I quote," are the educational purposes suppose to make me morally above everyone else".

That is what started this whole mess regarding ratboyy, john, and a couple other trolls, and myself. Ratboyy, controversially and confrontationally made that comment to me, someone he don't even know. And people soon follow in ratboyys steps, why? Because they are control freaks and they do not like people to post messages in here regarding episode trading. They hate it so much to the point that they opened up a rather sad yahoo club for this purpose. So they wont have to read anymore trade/sell episodes posts.

Ratboyy, John and a couple other trolls are now saying that I'm escalating shit by making up anonymous names and posting, because so many "NEW" people are making comments that support me. If this is true, please explain to me who are all these people that are posting about trade/sell episodes that you guys are so sick of seeing? Obviously, I'm not the only person who was seeking to trade episodes. And obviously, if there are so many of these messages from various people, then there are obviously so many people who post in here that support trading/selling episodes.

Ratboyy and John are complete and utter control freaks, not to mention cyber stalkers who will stop at nothing to lie and gain support from other netcops.

That being said, I will continue to voice my opinion and who ever don't like it can put me on killfile. I was asking the netcops to do that all along.

Now so this message isn't a complete waste of bandwidth, and somewhat on topic/trivia, I would like to ask whoever about episode #42, The trip part 2. Did that crazy old red headed lady "really" act on an old stooges show?

"Sam" wrote in message news:PIFc7.1573$[email]...

question

the

purposes

morally

I'm not plumping for any sides on the "educational purposes" remark but merely making a point on fair rules of attrition - the Geneva Convention of flame wars and all that. And your saying "and I quote" means either that you are about to quote or that you are about to lie. Since in fact the initial quote was "As though this morally places you above those who would sell it for profit?" in this case it was the latter. It's not that the meaning is significantly changed - although your misquote certainly casts unfair aspersions on Dave's semantic proficiency- it's just that it's a little piece of dishonesty that leaves you open to the suspicion that you may be dishonest on other matters.

If you are about quote by all means say so. But if you are about to paraphrase say that instead. The fact that you challenge people to go to the original thread to read what you plainly couldn't be bothered to do yourself makes you appear brazenly dishonest. If you want people to take your side on more important matters you should try not to treat them like idiots on the trivial.

"Tod Friendly" wrote in message news:9l1c20$rqg$[email]...

If you want people to take

I could not of said it better myself. Perhaps, you should follow your own advice?

If I misquoted Dave, I do know it wasn't in a malicious or devious intention. More importantly, the meaning in which I was trying to express did not change Dave's confrontational attitude towards me. What I stated, pretty much expressed what Dave said.

Lastly, I am not trying to gain anyone's support. I will very happily stand alone on this issue.

"Sam" wrote in message news:9GZc7.852$[email]...

like

If I am treating you like an idiot it is only because you provided ample evidence in support of the notion. You seem to not understand the very notion of quoting.

That's why you should have said you were paraphrasing. Why did you say "and I quote" and then put the remark in quotes when you were not quoting? That shows a basic lack of either integrity or intelligence. Perhaps both?

"Tod Friendly" wrote in message news:9l3nk6$aov$[email]...

"and

That

Tod Friendly,

Cool last name, too bad it's an oxymoron! As you insult my intelligence and integrity because I chose to quote someone and not get the quote to the exact wording, however, 98% of my quote kept the meaning and wording truthful, only proves that you are seeking hostile confrontation in a heated thread that already has enough hostile confrontation.

It is sad when someone like you feels the need to jump in and add fuel to the fire by insulting someone's intelligence and integrity. Kinda reminds me when I watch Animal Planet or Discovery channel when they show wild animals, particularly the jackals and the laughing hyenas who scavenger off of misfortune.

You are saying and I quote,

">Why did you say "and I quote" and then put the remark in quotes when you were not quoting? That

Why are you trying to insult someone whom you never met in life? You see a debate going on and your predatory instincts compel you to jump in a start insulting someone for a very trivial matter. If you were an intelligence and compassionate person, you would not feel the need to insult people and add fuel to a fire. An intelligent and compassionate person would not feel the need to jump into a debate to only create more anarchy, would they?

You can continue to throw insults and innuendoes my way till your hearts content. But who's truly exposing their lack of intelligence here?

Sam wrote in message ...

You shouldn't separate two sentences with a comma. It's confusing and hard to follow.

heated

This is called a 'run on' sentence. It's very difficult to understand and hard to follow. Also, the use of quotes suggests 100% of the material between them is exactly as stated elsewhere. Something with 98% accuracy is not a quote.. it's a paraphrase.

This is the second time you've accused someone of insulting your intelligence and integrity without citing an example of how they did that. It's confusing and hard to follow.

animals,

Yes?? This is an incomplete sentence. That makes it unintelligible and impossible to follow.

were not quoting? That

Why do you see it as an insult? Do your teachers 'insult you' when they grade your papers?

Say again?? This is an awkward sentence and very hard to follow.

This is an awkward sentence. You should not use a noun as an adjective.

You haven't made a case for the existance of fires or anarchy. It's presumptive [and awkward and difficult to follow] to reference them in the abstract.

ibid.

homerr.. bachelor#3 [Just say NO to bootleggers!]

"Sam" wrote in message news:5Ced7.2427$[email]...

That

I have been as fulsome in my rationalisation in my previous posts as I care to be; or am going to be.

"Tod Friendly" wrote in message news:9l6ade$jjk$[email]...

care

You know I normally wouldn't stoop to this level, but feel the need to point out the noticeable. Being that "you" are so obdurately engrossed with punctuation and grammar, the correct spelling for "rationalisation" as you put it, is rationalization. Mr. textbook isn't so perfect after all is he? Or shall I say, "you're" not as perfect as you try to appear.

Man, you *really* need to stop attempting to correct other people! Once again, your "correction" is wrong. "Rationalisation" IS the correct spelling of the word in the UK (where Tod Friendly lives) and in most other English-speaking countries. "Rationalization" is the more common variant here in the US. There are a number of other words with different spellings in the US/UK, like color/colour, aluminum/aluminium, etc.

I'm not sure if "Mr. Textbook" is perfect, but he's apparently more perfect than you. ;-)

"John Twernbold" wrote in message news:FSBd7.70408$[email]...

perfect

Perhaps even more laughable than the failed spelling correction though, is this notion that to expect that someone quote when they are claiming to quote shows a person to be a nit-picking "Mr Textbook" and puts it in line with picking out spelling mistakes and errors in grammar and punctuation. I find the mentality that could give rise to such a notion almost beyond all comprehension.

"Tod Friendly" wrote in message news:9l6uno$ki8$[email]... I

Everything is "beyond" your comprehension, isn't it? You're about the most ridicules person I've had the misfortune of coming across on Usenet in a long time.

"John Twernbold" wrote in message news:FSBd7.70408$[email]...

Even though I wasn't even speaking to you, you feel the need to jump into my thread once again. According to every dictionary I have, including the Random House College dictionary, I am "Correct".

Therefore "Correct"

perfect

According to you, that statement does "not" go far. You're beginning to make Beavis and Butthead look like Nobel Prize winners, with your rationaliZations.

"Sam" wrote in message news:67Dd7.5192$[email]...

my

OK. I'll admit it - you kind of had me going. For a while I thought you were being serious, but it's plain to me now that no-one could possibly be as stupid/intellectually dishonest as you are pretending to be. Good trolling and good night.

"Tod Friendly" wrote in message news:9l70pn$5cp$[email]...

*lol* You may pretend to be wise Mr. Tod (Oxymoron) Friendly, but we all know your, I mean (you're) not as slick as you like to have us believe.

I called your bluff. I laid the cards on the table and allowed them to fall as they may. You're exposed, or shall I say rooted as a self-conniving, indignant troublemaker. Allow me to "paraphrase" your first thread when you stated to me that you weren't trying to take sides, but only desired to point out my punctuation and misquotes.

What a complete and utter "troll" you are, but yet you say I'm the one doing the trolling? I'm sticking up for everyone who wishes to trade seinfeld episodes without having to be called a bootlegger, and/or ridiculed by control freaks that want to stop people from posting "episodes for trade/sell". I have a purpose for this argument. You on the other hand have manipulated yourself into this topic and have the audacity to call "me" a troll? *lol*

"Sam" wrote in message news:j8Id7.6150$[email]...

<Sigh> My actual quote was: "I'm not plumping for any sides on the "educational purposes" remark but merely making a point on fair rules of attrition - the Geneva Convention of flame wars and all that. And your saying "and I quote" means either that you are about to quote or that you are about to lie."

Anyone who knows the correct meaning of "paraphrase" will know that it does not involve adding in extra details to misrepresent someone's words..

Put simply: I never said I would complain about Sam's punctuation nor did I. Punctuation is not important. Putting false quotes into someone else's mouth *is*. It's a breach of a fundamental principle of debate. Of course it is no surprise that someone who cannot grasp the basics of quoting cannot grasp the basics of paraphrasing either. But it is a little sad.

"Tod Friendly" wrote in message news:9l9jig$fb$[email]...

Tod, You're an absolute and utter troll. It don't take much to piece you together like a puzzle. You use a last name called "friendly"; your e-mail address is [email]. What's up with "babies dead"? Do we have a freak baby killer among us?

1,460 reasons why you're a troll.

Reading throughout the first page I see a self-righteous troll contributing nothing other then wasting bandwidth on argumentative opinion. I stopped before I reached page #2 because I've wasting enough time with you already.

Tod meet my killfile!

"Sam" wrote in message news:bq%d7.8026$[email]...

together

is

I wouldn't be surprised.

Thankfully, since Sam has me killfiled, no-one need feel patronised if I briefly mention books. "Tod Friendly" is a character in the Martin Amis novel Time's Arrow. And Dead Babies is another Martin Amis novel. ([email] was however already taken.)

Aw, I liked Sambo's take better.

Dave (woulda been cool to know a *real* freak baby killer.)

Ahh, but you're forgetting what you wrote. Tod and I are pointing out that your "correction" was in error because Tod wasn't wrong!

More insults? Help, I'm being harassed! Someone call the police! ;-)

"John Twernbold" wrote in message news:4IDd7.76665$[email]...

No you imbecile, Todd was wrong. I have dictionaries in which I provided the name of one popular College dictionary that I am correct. Todd was wrong, therefore making you wrong once again. Nevertheless, it was another amusing attempt of control and correction on your part. Very admirable indeed!

No, your harassment stems from doing research on me to obtain personal information and posting false allegation in this Usenet forum. Insults come with the territory. If I considered insults a form of harassment, I would turn in multiple people in here. However you only see me stating that I turned "YOU" in for harassment. Because you're the only fool who did the above.

Sam wrote in message ...

that

the

I just looked "Sam" up... she's 14 years old and a resident of a juvenile home for unwed mothers in Morgantown, W VA. I should report her for 'not' using the computer to try and find the father of her baby.

homerr.. OGN bachelor#3

"homerr..2K" wrote in message news:9l73j6$jps$[email]...

Damn you're good. *lol*

ROFL! This is absolutely hilarious! Okay everyone, get your local library to throw out their $950 20-volume OED. Sam's little Random House dictionary is now the only one we should use. If you utter a word it doesn't contain, you're wrong, wrong, wrong. And probably an imbecile. :-)

This debate reminds me of the scene in "The Cafe":

[Kramer]: Isn't there like a statue of limitations on that? [Jerry]: Statute. [Kramer]: What? [Jerry]: Statute of limitations. It's not a statue. [Kramer]: No, it's statue. [Jerry]: Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations.

Hey, Sam--since we're now following your lead on proper English, should we start mixing up "your" and "you're", too? ;-)

"John Twernbold" wrote in message news:ilFd7.77869$[email]...

When is the last time I misused that word? Your the one who always misuses it.

"You're" the one who always misuses it. ;-)

Ya know, you guys seem to be having such a great time with alt.tv.seinfeld's new official slaptoy, that I'm strongly considering unplonking him just to join the fun.

Dave (smells fishy though, nobody is consistently wrong by accident.)

Dave wrote in message ...

that

C'mon in.. we're just 'spankin' da monkey'... !

homerr.. bachelor#3 [just say NO to bootleggers]

"Sam" wrote in message news:uGzd7.4815$[email]...

point

Sam - you are making an utter ass out of yourself again. I write in standard English as opposed to American English. This is because I was educated and live in the UK as opposed to the United States of America. My spelling of the word "rationalisation" is thus quite correct. In fact it's quite correct in your country too - it is at most not preferred. Now please go away you silly man.

Tod Friendly wrote in message ...

all is

please

"Can't We All Just Comprimize?" Rodney King - '92

homerr.. bachelor#3 [Just Say NO To Bootleggerzzzzzzz!!]

"homerr..2K" wrote in message news:9l6rpl$pft$[email]...

I know I could ComprimiZe.

"Tod Friendly" wrote in message news:9l6pq0$gif$[email]...

you

he?

My

it's

According to my dictionaries it's not. And if you're going to address me, please use proper english.

• it is at most not preferred. Now please

Perhaps now you know how it feels when confronted with the trivial? I gave you a taste of your own medicine.

Now you go away you infinitesimal UK boy.