Duke lie 0902171 - Blatantly False Witness

[Ted]

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

[Patrick]

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

Not me. I'll pass.
AGAIN.

[Ted]

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

Not me. I'll pass.
AGAIN.

LOL. That's okay, Patrick. I've been on usenet a long time too, and know we
all have to be loyal to our allies.

[raven1]

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

Not me. I'll pass.
AGAIN.

Even you know that the liar here is Duke. Don't pretend otherwise.

[raven1]

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I killfiled Duke for exactly that reason: he blatantly lies about what
was said earlier in the conversation, and then denies he's lying, even
with the conversation still there for anyone to easily see that he's
lying. Donald Trump is more honest than Duke.

[Ted]

Post by raven1

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I killfiled Duke for exactly that reason: he blatantly lies about what
was said earlier in the conversation, and then denies he's lying, even
with the conversation still there for anyone to easily see that he's
lying. Donald Trump is more honest than Duke.

LOL. And that's saying something. But at least duke's lies don't have the
same scope. However, we don't know how badly duke's lies have already hurt
the people around him.

[duke]

Post by Ted

Post by raven1

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I killfiled Duke for exactly that reason: he blatantly lies about what
was said earlier in the conversation, and then denies he's lying, even
with the conversation still there for anyone to easily see that he's
lying. Donald Trump is more honest than Duke.

LOL. And that's saying something. But at least duke's lies don't have the
same scope. However, we don't know how badly duke's lies have already hurt
the people around him.

It's very simple. No lies, no pain.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[duke]

Post by raven1

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I killfiled Duke for exactly that reason: he blatantly lies about what
was said earlier in the conversation, and then denies he's lying, even
with the conversation still there for anyone to easily see that he's
lying. Donald Trump is more honest than Duke.

And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Syd M.]

Post by duke

Post by raven1

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I killfiled Duke for exactly that reason: he blatantly lies about what
was said earlier in the conversation, and then denies he's lying, even
with the conversation still there for anyone to easily see that he's
lying. Donald Trump is more honest than Duke.

And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge your lies doesn't make them go away.

PDW

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Syd M.

Post by duke

Post by raven1

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I killfiled Duke for exactly that reason: he blatantly lies about what
was said earlier in the conversation, and then denies he's lying, even
with the conversation still there for anyone to easily see that he's
lying. Donald Trump is more honest than Duke.

And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge your lies doesn't make them go away.

When one lives in The Bubble, reality is exactly what you want it to be, facts be damned.

[Syd M.]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Syd M.

Post by duke

Post by raven1

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I killfiled Duke for exactly that reason: he blatantly lies about what
was said earlier in the conversation, and then denies he's lying, even
with the conversation still there for anyone to easily see that he's
lying. Donald Trump is more honest than Duke.

And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge your lies doesn't make them go away.

When one lives in The Bubble, reality is exactly what you want it to be, facts be damned.

And his bubble is extra strength large tier...

PDW

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by duke

Post by raven1

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I killfiled Duke for exactly that reason: he blatantly lies about what
was said earlier in the conversation, and then denies he's lying, even
with the conversation still there for anyone to easily see that he's
lying. Donald Trump is more honest than Duke.

And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

But I do think you are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[duke]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[duke]

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

[duke]

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

See below.

Post by duke

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.
the dukester, American-American

LOL. Your stupidity is astounding, Duke. Anybody who follows the URL
links (starting with the one above) will know that you were too damn
dumb to know what "vertical component" means and, much worse, why you're
lying now about what I said. It seems as though you're deliberately
trying to make yourself (and the RCC) look bad.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

See below.

Post by duke

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.
the dukester, American-American

.> LOL. Your stupidity is astounding, Duke. Anybody who follows the URL
.> links (starting with the one above) will know that you were too damn
.> dumb to know what "vertical component" means and, much worse, why you're
.> lying now about what I said. It seems as though you're deliberately
.> trying to make yourself (and the RCC) look bad.

There have been some great RC mathematicians -- Mersenne, Descartes,
Fermat, Pascal... Sadly, I do not believe Our Duke is destined to be counted among their numbers.


AA

[Ted]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken
falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying
that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

See below.

Post by duke

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.
the dukester, American-American

.> LOL. Your stupidity is astounding, Duke. Anybody who follows the URL
.> links (starting with the one above) will know that you were too damn
.> dumb to know what "vertical component" means and, much worse, why you're
.> lying now about what I said. It seems as though you're deliberately
.> trying to make yourself (and the RCC) look bad.
There have been some great RC mathematicians -- Mersenne, Descartes,
Fermat, Pascal... Sadly, I do not believe Our Duke is destined to be
counted among their numbers.
AA

LOL.

Now I'm curious. You do such cool esoteric stuff. Has your work involved
Mersenne numbers?

[Ted]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken
falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying
that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

See below.

Post by duke

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.
the dukester, American-American

.> LOL. Your stupidity is astounding, Duke. Anybody who follows the URL
.> links (starting with the one above) will know that you were too damn
.> dumb to know what "vertical component" means and, much worse, why you're
.> lying now about what I said. It seems as though you're deliberately
.> trying to make yourself (and the RCC) look bad.
There have been some great RC mathematicians -- Mersenne, Descartes,
Fermat, Pascal... Sadly, I do not believe Our Duke is destined to be
counted among their numbers.
AA

LOL.

[duke]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:49:01 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

See below.

Post by duke

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.
the dukester, American-American

.> LOL. Your stupidity is astounding, Duke. Anybody who follows the URL
.> links (starting with the one above) will know that you were too damn
.> dumb to know what "vertical component" means and, much worse, why you're
.> lying now about what I said. It seems as though you're deliberately
.> trying to make yourself (and the RCC) look bad.
There have been some great RC mathematicians -- Mersenne, Descartes,
Fermat, Pascal... Sadly, I do not believe Our Duke is destined to be counted among their numbers.

Neither one of us can play with that group.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by duke
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:49:01 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

See below.

Post by duke

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.
the dukester, American-American

.> LOL. Your stupidity is astounding, Duke. Anybody who follows the URL
.> links (starting with the one above) will know that you were too damn
.> dumb to know what "vertical component" means and, much worse, why you're
.> lying now about what I said. It seems as though you're deliberately
.> trying to make yourself (and the RCC) look bad.
There have been some great RC mathematicians -- Mersenne, Descartes,
Fermat, Pascal... Sadly, I do not believe Our Duke is destined to be counted among their numbers.

Neither one of us can play with that group.
the dukester, American-American

True, but Mersenne, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal : AA :: AA : duke.
And Dunning-Kruger says you'll disagree.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by duke
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:49:01 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

See below.

Post by duke

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.
the dukester, American-American

.> LOL. Your stupidity is astounding, Duke. Anybody who follows the URL
.> links (starting with the one above) will know that you were too damn
.> dumb to know what "vertical component" means and, much worse, why you're
.> lying now about what I said. It seems as though you're deliberately
.> trying to make yourself (and the RCC) look bad.
There have been some great RC mathematicians -- Mersenne, Descartes,
Fermat, Pascal... Sadly, I do not believe Our Duke is destined to be counted among their numbers.

.> >Neither one of us can play with that group.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

.> True, but Mersenne, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal : AA :: AA : duke.
.> And Dunning-Kruger says you'll disagree.

He'd disagree if he got it. Vegas is giving 11-2 against.

But thank you.

aa

[Ted]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:49:01 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had
spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements,
saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

See below.

Post by duke

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.
the dukester, American-American

.> LOL. Your stupidity is astounding, Duke. Anybody who follows the URL
.> links (starting with the one above) will know that you were too damn
.> dumb to know what "vertical component" means and, much worse, why you're
.> lying now about what I said. It seems as though you're deliberately
.> trying to make yourself (and the RCC) look bad.
There have been some great RC mathematicians -- Mersenne, Descartes,
Fermat, Pascal... Sadly, I do not believe Our Duke is destined to be
counted among their numbers.

.> >Neither one of us can play with that group.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

.> True, but Mersenne, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal : AA :: AA : duke.
.> And Dunning-Kruger says you'll disagree.
He'd disagree if he got it. Vegas is giving 11-2 against.

LOL. Good call. I wouldn't bet on it either. ;)

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But thank you.
aa

[duke]

Post by Ted

Post by duke
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:49:01 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

See below.

Post by duke

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.
the dukester, American-American

.> LOL. Your stupidity is astounding, Duke. Anybody who follows the URL
.> links (starting with the one above) will know that you were too damn
.> dumb to know what "vertical component" means and, much worse, why you're
.> lying now about what I said. It seems as though you're deliberately
.> trying to make yourself (and the RCC) look bad.
There have been some great RC mathematicians -- Mersenne, Descartes,
Fermat, Pascal... Sadly, I do not believe Our Duke is destined to be counted among their numbers.

Neither one of us can play with that group.
the dukester, American-American

True, but Mersenne, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal : AA :: AA : duke.
And Dunning-Kruger says you'll disagree.

Disagree with myself? Now that takes talent.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:49:01 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had
spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements,
saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Name one, you filthy bastard.

See below.

Post by duke

Post by Ted
Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

You said it, not me. I said W/2 is NOT the tension in the rope.
the dukester, American-American

.> LOL. Your stupidity is astounding, Duke. Anybody who follows the URL
.> links (starting with the one above) will know that you were too damn
.> dumb to know what "vertical component" means and, much worse, why you're
.> lying now about what I said. It seems as though you're deliberately
.> trying to make yourself (and the RCC) look bad.
There have been some great RC mathematicians -- Mersenne, Descartes,
Fermat, Pascal... Sadly, I do not believe Our Duke is destined to be
counted among their numbers.

Neither one of us can play with that group.
the dukester, American-American

True, but Mersenne, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal : AA :: AA : duke.
And Dunning-Kruger says you'll disagree.

Disagree with myself? Now that takes talent.
the dukester, American-American

Well, Dunning-Kruger says you'd disagree if you understood what it meant.
But AA called it correctly when he predicted you wouldn't.

AA: "He'd disagree if he got it. Vegas is giving 11-2 against."

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

But let us not forget where "the Dukester" lied that
Obama has " Never been to a Church except for a funeral."


Aa

[duke]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

But let us not forget where "the Dukester" lied that
Obama has " Never been to a Church except for a funeral."

Try "been to Church", not "a church".

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Aa

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by duke
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

,> >But let us not forget where "the Dukester" lied that
,> >Obama has " Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> Try "been to Church", not "a church".

Don't need to -- that's a direct cut-and-paste quote from one of your posts.

Want to see the link to it?

Memorable too, because that same post also contained another,
stunningly hilarious, lie of yours:

" I know it's against his religious faith to take a dog
on the airplane with him during ramadan."


They just kind of pile up, don't they?

AA

[duke]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:17:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

,> >But let us not forget where "the Dukester" lied that
,> >Obama has " Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> Try "been to Church", not "a church".
Don't need to -- that's a direct cut-and-paste quote from one of your posts.
Want to see the link to it?

Even Rev Wright was pissed off with him.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Memorable too, because that same post also contained another,
" I know it's against his religious faith to take a dog
on the airplane with him during ramadan."

Yep, muslim problem.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
They just kind of pile up, don't they?

Yes they do.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by duke
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:17:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

,> >But let us not forget where "the Dukester" lied that
,> >Obama has " Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> Try "been to Church", not "a church".

.> .>Don't need to -- that's a direct cut-and-paste quote from one of your posts.
.> >Want to see the link to it?
.> Even Rev Wright was pissed off with him.

Which of course has exactly zero to do with your lie
that Obama has "Never been to a Church except for a funeral."

.> >Memorable too, because that same post also contained another,
.> >stunningly hilarious, lie of yours:
.> > " I know it's against his religious faith to take a dog
.> > on the airplane with him during ramadan."
.> Yep, muslim problem.

Oh, no: "dukester" problem. Yet another documented lie.

Wrong? Then show me a single Islamic site where this made-up idea
of yours is discussed.
(hint: Google will not be your friend in this case).

Go:






aA

Post by duke

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
They just kind of pile up, don't they?

Yes they do.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:17:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had
spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements,
saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

,> >But let us not forget where "the Dukester" lied that
,> >Obama has " Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> Try "been to Church", not "a church".

.> .>Don't need to -- that's a direct cut-and-paste quote from one of your posts.
.> >Want to see the link to it?
.> Even Rev Wright was pissed off with him.
Which of course has exactly zero to do with your lie
that Obama has "Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> >Memorable too, because that same post also contained another,
.> > " I know it's against his religious faith to take a dog
.> > on the airplane with him during ramadan."
.> Yep, muslim problem.
Oh, no: "dukester" problem. Yet another documented lie.
Wrong? Then show me a single Islamic site where this made-up idea
of yours is discussed.
(hint: Google will not be your friend in this case).

LOL.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
aA

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:17:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had
spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements,
saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

,> >But let us not forget where "the Dukester" lied that
,> >Obama has " Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> Try "been to Church", not "a church".

.> .>Don't need to -- that's a direct cut-and-paste quote from one of your posts.
.> >Want to see the link to it?
.> Even Rev Wright was pissed off with him.
Which of course has exactly zero to do with your lie
that Obama has "Never been to a Church except for a funeral."

.> > .> >Memorable too, because that same post also contained another,
.> > .> >stunningly hilarious, lie of yours:
.> > .> > " I know it's against his religious faith to take a dog
.> > .> > on the airplane with him during ramadan."
.> > .> Yep, muslim problem.
.> > Oh, no: "dukester" problem. Yet another documented lie.
.> > Wrong? Then show me a single Islamic site where this made-up idea
.> > of yours is discussed.
.> > (hint: Google will not be your friend in this case).
.> LOL.

Oh, there's nothing so hilariously fake or so obviously
satirical that Duke won't leap on with little whimpers
of joy if it trashes Obama. He fell for this one too:


THIS IS ABSOLUTELY HEART-BREAKING!!!

WHAT ELSE CAN OUR MUSLIM-IN-CHIEF DO TO OUR COUNTRY AND OUR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS??

No Christmas cards to our military

Obama's military command will prevent delivery of
Christmas cards being sent from families to their
servicemen loved ones overseas spokesmen for The
Pentagon said today.

The White House claims that traditional Christmas
greetings wish will upset Muslims in host countries and
will have to be confiscated and returned to the sender.

...and on and on in that vein.

-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/9OgEMaJtD6g/seFy4jsxCQAJ

which was in fact from "Fox News" -- a Facebook satire site calling
itself "Fox News the FB Page", which cranks out political satire.

Now a normal person, having that pointed out to him,
would admit it at best and just pretend not to have seen it at worst.

But it's Duke we're talking about here.


A sample current offering from "Fox News the FB Page":

"Count the Girl Scouts of America among the many
organizations stepping up to help the victims of flood-
ravaged Houston, Texas and surrounding communities.

Beginning tomorrow, Sunday September 3rd, which
President Donald J. Trump has declared National Day of
Prayer for Texas, the Girl Scouts will set aside their
usual cookie sales and instead sell replicas of the
Manolo Blahnik stilettos that First Lady Melania Trump
wore as she boarded Air Force One to accompany her
husband to Corpus Christi, Texas and witness first hand
the devastation inflicted by #Harvey.

In an exclusive interview, Debbra Collyer, Scoutmaster
of GSA Troop 252 in Aldine, TX, told Fox News the girls
will begin selling the shoes in the vestibules of local
churches and then branch out to other regions."


aA

[Ted]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:17:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had
spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements,
saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

,> >But let us not forget where "the Dukester" lied that
,> >Obama has " Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> Try "been to Church", not "a church".

.> .>Don't need to -- that's a direct cut-and-paste quote from one of your posts.
.> >Want to see the link to it?
.> Even Rev Wright was pissed off with him.
Which of course has exactly zero to do with your lie
that Obama has "Never been to a Church except for a funeral."

.> > .> >Memorable too, because that same post also contained another,
.> > .> > " I know it's against his religious faith to take a dog
.> > .> > on the airplane with him during ramadan."
.> > .> Yep, muslim problem.
.> > Oh, no: "dukester" problem. Yet another documented lie.
.> > Wrong? Then show me a single Islamic site where this made-up idea
.> > of yours is discussed.
.> > (hint: Google will not be your friend in this case).
.> LOL.
Oh, there's nothing so hilariously fake or so obviously
satirical that Duke won't leap on with little whimpers

LOL.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY HEART-BREAKING!!!
WHAT ELSE CAN OUR MUSLIM-IN-CHIEF DO TO OUR COUNTRY AND OUR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS??
No Christmas cards to our military
Obama's military command will prevent delivery of
Christmas cards being sent from families to their
servicemen loved ones overseas spokesmen for The
Pentagon said today.
The White House claims that traditional Christmas
greetings wish will upset Muslims in host countries and
will have to be confiscated and returned to the sender.
...and on and on in that vein.
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/9OgEMaJtD6g/seFy4jsxCQAJ
which was in fact from "Fox News" -- a Facebook satire site calling
itself "Fox News the FB Page", which cranks out political satire.
Now a normal person, having that pointed out to him,
would admit it at best and just pretend not to have seen it at worst.
But it's Duke we're talking about here.

OMG what an idiot! LOL!! :)

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
"Count the Girl Scouts of America among the many
organizations stepping up to help the victims of flood-
ravaged Houston, Texas and surrounding communities.
Beginning tomorrow, Sunday September 3rd, which
President Donald J. Trump has declared National Day of
Prayer for Texas, the Girl Scouts will set aside their
usual cookie sales and instead sell replicas of the
Manolo Blahnik stilettos that First Lady Melania Trump
wore as she boarded Air Force One to accompany her
husband to Corpus Christi, Texas and witness first hand
the devastation inflicted by #Harvey.
In an exclusive interview, Debbra Collyer, Scoutmaster
of GSA Troop 252 in Aldine, TX, told Fox News the girls
will begin selling the shoes in the vestibules of local
churches and then branch out to other regions."
aA

Thanks AA. I'll keep that site in mind.

[duke]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:17:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

,> >But let us not forget where "the Dukester" lied that
,> >Obama has " Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> Try "been to Church", not "a church".

.> .>Don't need to -- that's a direct cut-and-paste quote from one of your posts.
.> >Want to see the link to it?
.> Even Rev Wright was pissed off with him.
Which of course has exactly zero to do with your lie
that Obama has "Never been to a Church except for a funeral."

Not "a" church, but to Church.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Memorable too, because that same post also contained another,
.> > " I know it's against his religious faith to take a dog
.> > on the airplane with him during ramadan."
.> Yep, muslim problem.
Oh, no: "dukester" problem. Yet another documented lie.
Wrong? Then show me a single Islamic site where this made-up idea
of yours is discussed.
(hint: Google will not be your friend in this case).

The dog is one of those animals which is not permissible for a Muslim to keep
unless a Muslim needs a dog for hunting, guarding livestock or guarding crops.
otherwise two qiraats from his good deeds will be deducted each day he keeps a
dog.

All those muslims on a plane. Who woulda thunk that was a place to hunt?
Thank you google.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by duke
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:17:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by duke
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

You're "dirty", Duke, and not just because you're a liar.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American

Btw, here's my favorite duke lie so far: http://tinyurl.com/ybb6dx24

,> >But let us not forget where "the Dukester" lied that
,> >Obama has " Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> Try "been to Church", not "a church".

.> .>Don't need to -- that's a direct cut-and-paste quote from one of your posts.
.> >Want to see the link to it?
.> Even Rev Wright was pissed off with him.

.> >Which of course has exactly zero to do with your lie
.> >that Obama has "Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> Not "a" church, but to Church.

Wrong again, liar-boi. Your very own post:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.atheism/p14Kc-BS_Cs/PpWm2StmDQAJ


Now, what's your next lie going to be: to pretend you can't
read what's at that link or to pretend you didn't see the link?
,> >.> >Memorable too, because that same post also contained another,
,> >.> >stunningly hilarious, lie of yours:
,> >.> > " I know it's against his religious faith to take a dog
,> >.> > on the airplane with him during ramadan."
,> >.> Yep, muslim problem.
,> >Oh, no: "dukester" problem. Yet another documented lie.
,> >Wrong? Then show me a single Islamic site where this made-up idea
,> >of yours is discussed.
,> >(hint: Google will not be your friend in this case).
.> The dog is one of those animals which is not permissible for a Muslim to keep
.> unless a Muslim needs a dog for hunting, guarding livestock or guarding crops.
.> otherwise two qiraats from his good deeds will be deducted each day he keeps a
.> dog.

Oh, the Prophet (pbuh) hated dogs. Not news to anyone who
is actually interested in, you know, reading and the world and so forth.

So you're telling us Obama had a dog.
And that Muslims can't have dogs.

Therefore, by Duke logic, Obama cannot have been a Muslim.

Well, unless you want to embellish your original lie and claim
that Obama was an avid hunter. Or kept a herd of sheep in the White House.


Guess what? <FLUNK!> You claimed that during Ramadan,
Muslims cannot be on the same plane as their own dog.

You cannot find a site says anything remotely like "Muslims during Ramadan,
being forbidden to be on the same plane as their dog."

Normal people would have no problem admitting when they
were taken in by fake news.

But it's you we're talking about here.

Incidentally, this rumor is based on an actual event.
But it had nothing to do with either Ramadan nor Islamic customs.

What to hear about the actual real-life story?

AtlAxo

Post by duke
All those muslims on a plane. Who woulda thunk that was a place to hunt?
Thank you google.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[duke]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Which of course has exactly zero to do with your lie
.> >that Obama has "Never been to a Church except for a funeral."
.> Not "a" church, but to Church.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.atheism/p14Kc-BS_Cs/PpWm2StmDQAJ

You forgot this opening part: And for sure he isn't a Christian.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> The dog is one of those animals which is not permissible for a Muslim to keep
.> unless a Muslim needs a dog for hunting, guarding livestock or guarding crops.
.> otherwise two qiraats from his good deeds will be deducted each day he keeps a
.> dog.
Oh, the Prophet (pbuh) hated dogs. Not news to anyone who
is actually interested in, you know, reading and the world and so forth.

Hey, a muslim is a muslim. 'ratbama is.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're telling us Obama had a dog.
And that Muslims can't have dogs.
Therefore, by Duke logic, Obama cannot have been a Muslim.

Strange. He's a poor muslim.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Well, unless you want to embellish your original lie and claim
that Obama was an avid hunter. Or kept a herd of sheep in the White House.

I'll leave that one to your imagination.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Guess what? <FLUNK!> You claimed that during Ramadan,
Muslims cannot be on the same plane as their own dog.
You cannot find a site says anything remotely like "Muslims during Ramadan,
being forbidden to be on the same plane as their dog."

I didn't make the statement up. You're trying to make a case for him keeping
sheep in the white house.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Normal people would have no problem admitting when they
were taken in by fake news.
But it's you we're talking about here.
Incidentally, this rumor is based on an actual event.
But it had nothing to do with either Ramadan nor Islamic customs.

but I repeated the comment I saw.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
What to hear about the actual real-life story?

Nah, not interested. You're starting to act desperate.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Syd M.]

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar.

Nope. That's still YOU, Dork.

PDW

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

Thus spoke Dukathrusta:
"And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar."

Temper, Duke! Calling me a "dirty liar".

Speaking of lying, Duke, if I show that you had stated untruths, and proved it to you by copying your own words, showing that they were false, and copy where you stated that "I (that's you, Duke) overstated my case", that would prove two things.

1) Your unsupported claim that I am a "dirty liar" is not true, by the terms of your claim.

2) That your claim that I am a "dirty liar" is in itself a lie, your very own lie. Jesus wept. And Duke still lied.

So, Duke, if I show that you spoke falsely in this one case, and that you did say "I overstated my case":

1) Will you acknowledge that you were mistaken?
2) Will you acknowledge that I told the truth?
3) Will you acknowledge that you lied when you wrote in this post, speaking of me, that "So you (Marvin) are a dirty liar.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

Apologies if anything was snipped when I wrote my reply.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[duke]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

"And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar."
Temper, Duke! Calling me a "dirty liar".

When the shoe fits.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Speaking of lying, Duke, if I show that you had stated untruths, and proved it to you by copying your own words, showing that they were false, and copy where you stated that "I (that's you, Duke) overstated my case", that would prove two things.
1) Your unsupported claim that I am a "dirty liar" is not true, by the terms of your claim.

Terms???

Post by Marvin Sebourn
2) That your claim that I am a "dirty liar" is in itself a lie, your very own lie. Jesus wept. And Duke still lied.

You are.
I can recall once, maybe twice, where I did that in 20 years. That's not a lie.
That's a matter of over-emphasizing of point.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1) Will you acknowledge that you were mistaken?

If I was.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
2) Will you acknowledge that I told the truth?

If you did.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
3) Will you acknowledge that you lied when you wrote in this post, speaking of me, that "So you (Marvin) are a dirty liar.

If I did.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

Yes I have. When I challenged you, and showed that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

One statement??

Many.

"And yet you can't name one. So you are a dirty liar."
Temper, Duke! Calling me a "dirty liar".

When the shoe fits.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Speaking of lying, Duke, if I show that you had stated untruths, and proved it to you by copying your own words, showing that they were false, and copy where you stated that "I (that's you, Duke) overstated my case", that would prove two things.
1) Your unsupported claim that I am a "dirty liar" is not true, by the terms of your claim.

Terms???

Terms, Duke? To keep it simple, and to make sure there is no obfuscation, I want to hold you to your reasoning where you called me a "dirty liar".

Where you said that because "...you cannot name one..." referring to my statement that I could not "...show(ed) that you had spoken falsely, you referred to many of your false statements, saying that "I (Duke) overstated my case".

Your statement is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/alt.atheism/Duke$20AND$20D-Day$20AND$20author$3Ame/alt.atheism/YjlXSdA7d5g

You wrote there that:
1) "In the 69 years since D-Day, there are four occasions when the President of the United States  chose not to visit the D-Day Monument that honors the soldiers killed during the Invasion."

That is not true, Duke. " An American president didn't visit Normandy in commemoration until Jimmy Carter made the trip in January 1978." That from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/05/obama-d-day-roosevelt-carter-reagan-bush-clinton/9967199/

So you did not tell the truth. Instead of only four years that an American president did not visit the D-Day memorial, there have been only eight (subject to correction) times that an American President visited a commemoration of the Normandy invasion.

Instead of four years out of sixty-eight that you false claim that an American president did not visit D-Day commemorations, there were sixty times our President did not visit. This is with a quick check-I believe it to be accurate, but it might be subject to minor revision, but nothing on the order of your claims of only four years missed out of sixty eight. I count the sixty eight years starting backwards from when you made the post.

So you did not tell the truth. Not just an "overstatement".



Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)
 
1. Barack Obama, 2010
 
2. Barack Obama, 2011
 
3. Barack Obama, 2012
 
4. Barack Obama, 2013"

Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.
But he did attend services in 2009.
And again in 2014, although this may be later than your "overstated" claim.

So Duke, doubly false, in that President Obama DID attend D-Day services, AND that several other presidents did not attend. 

Duke: "For the past 69 years, every American President  except Obama have taken the time to honor the memory and sacrifices of the 6,000 American soldiers killed on D-Day. ... Except Obama!

"...every American President..." No, Duke, not true.

"Obama have (has not) taken the time to honor the memory and sacrifices of the 6,000 American soldiers killed on D-Day."

Not a "I misspoke", not a "I don't remember" not a "It's been a long time ago", not an "I overstated my case", but a LIE, Duke, a lie that you told.

Here above are three or four deceitful statements from you, Duke, not "overstatements" but statements that are structured to deceive, and are NOT TRUE, and all from you, Duke. Plus your many lies about me lying concerning this matter.

As John Locke wrote so nicely a month or so ago, Bishop to King 7, Checkmate!

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com


 
Oops, more Duke Deceit:

"June 6 2010, Obama had no events scheduled.
 
June 6, 2011, Obama met with the National Security team and was interviewed by
WEWS Cleveland and WDIV in Detroit about the auto industry - FAR too busy to
visit the D-Day memorial.
 
June 6, 2012, instead of honoring our fallen soldiers, Obama made a campaign
trip to California on Air Force 1 (at our expense) to raise funds for (his)
upcoming election.
 
June 6, 2013, Obama was doing ANOTHER fund raiser with the multimillionaires in
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Palo Alto CA, once again at our
expense.
 
America - Aren't you proud?
I'll  forward  it. "
End Duke

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
2) That your claim that I am a "dirty liar" is in itself a lie, your very own lie. Jesus wept. And Duke still lied.

You are.
I can recall once, maybe twice, where I did that in 20 years. That's not a lie.
That's a matter of over-emphasizing of point.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1) Will you acknowledge that you were mistaken?

If I was.

You were, acknowledge it. Acknowledge that it was much more than an overstatement.

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
2) Will you acknowledge that I told the truth?

If you did.

I did. You didn't. Acknowledge it.

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
3) Will you acknowledge that you lied when you wrote in this post, speaking of me, that "So you (Marvin) are a dirty liar.

If I did.

You did lie, and it's time for you to acknowledge it. Not that what you say of me matters to me, it does matter to you, whether you realize it or not.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[duke]

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

He only attendance is Virginia outside DC. Woe be his attendance in France.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

He only attendance is Virginia outside DC. Woe be his attendance in France.

And Duke said: “He only attendance is Virginia outside DC. Woe be his attendance in France.”

Do you honestly think your “response” means anything, Duke? What are you doing here, Duke, employing the mental incompetency defense? You addressed nothing I wrote, after saying you would acknowledge if you were wrong, or had spoken falsely of me, and all you come up with is a mostly, if not entirely “He only attendance is Virginia outside DC. Woe be his attendance in France.” response.

It’s difficult to reply to your mostly meaningless words. It’s hard to see anything other than your pusillanimous stance, afraid to admit you were wrong, and seeing your obfuscation or mental confusion when you tried, unsuccessfully, to make a meaningful reply.

But addressing the visit of Obama to the Invasion Beach area, here is a snippet from the White House archives, addressing President Obama presence at Omaha Beach:

“ Remarks by President Obama at the 70th Anniversary of D-Day -- Omaha Beach, Normandy
Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, Omaha Beach, Normandy, France
11:16 A.M. CET

PRESIDENT OBAMA: President Hollande; to the people of France; friends; the family; our veterans: 
If prayer were made of sound, the skies over England that night would have deafened the world.”

If you have difficulties concerning cognition, please let me know. Your statements such as “He only attendance is Virginia outside DC. “ give me concern.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[duke]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 
1. Barack Obama, 2010

Post by Marvin Sebourn
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

He only attendance is Virginia outside DC. Woe be his attendance in France.

That's absolutely correct.

And Duke said: “He only attendance is Virginia outside DC. Woe be his attendance in France.”
Do you honestly think your “response” means anything, Duke? What are you doing here, Duke, employing the mental incompetency defense? You addressed nothing I wrote, after saying you would acknowledge if you were wrong, or had spoken falsely of me, and all you come up with is a mostly, if not entirely “He only attendance is Virginia outside DC. Woe be his attendance in France.” response.

I copied the published data. His attendance "in France" was 2014.

It’s difficult to reply to your mostly meaningless words. It’s hard to see anything other than your pusillanimous stance, afraid to admit you were wrong, and seeing your obfuscation or mental confusion when you tried, unsuccessfully, to make a meaningful reply.
“ Remarks by President Obama at the 70th Anniversary of D-Day -- Omaha Beach, Normandy
Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, Omaha Beach, Normandy, France
11:16 A.M. CET

Yep, 1944 + 70 = 2014. Looks like he was in need of a photo op as he wasn't
anyone for the 50th and out of office for the 75th.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Besides his other snips he does not mention--apparently afraid to leave in, and afraid to acknowledge that he snipped, Duke snipped the following, set immediately after "listed" above:
"But he did attend services in 2009. And again in 2014, although this may be later than your "overstated" claim."

Duke.
Cowardly actions.
Deceitfully arranged.
Obfuscated by nonsense.
Lacking truth in many areas.

Than's Duke, here.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
He only attendance is Virginia outside DC. Woe be his attendance in France.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day
commemoration ceremonies in France)
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not
attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Besides his other snips he does not mention--apparently afraid to leave
in, and afraid to acknowledge that he snipped, Duke snipped the
"But he did attend services in 2009. And again in 2014, although this may
be later than your "overstated" claim."
Duke.
Cowardly actions.
Deceitfully arranged.
Obfuscated by nonsense.
Lacking truth in many areas.
Than's Duke, here.

Well said. Thank you.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn

[duke]

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day
commemoration ceremonies in France)
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not
attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Besides his other snips he does not mention--apparently afraid to leave
in, and afraid to acknowledge that he snipped, Duke snipped the
"But he did attend services in 2009. And again in 2014, although this may
be later than your "overstated" claim."
Duke.
Cowardly actions.
Deceitfully arranged.
Obfuscated by nonsense.
Lacking truth in many areas.
Than's Duke, here.

Well said. Thank you.

You enjoy seeing people step on their pecker, don't you.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[duke]

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration
ceremonies in France"
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"

Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. That happens,
you know.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration
ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.

Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slope is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made handbasket.

Post by duke
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. That happens,
you know.

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013 as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as President Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you, Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on the order of yours.

I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke) are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."

I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but not a lie.

But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration
ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.
But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.
Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slope is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made handbasket.

Post by duke
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. That happens,
you know.

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013 as a non-appearance date for President Obama.
They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as President Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you, Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on the order of yours.
I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke) are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."
I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but not a lie.
But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.
Marvin Sebourn

You're being quite punctilious about getting the facts straight.

Duke don't care about no steenkin' facts.

AtlAxo

[Jeanne Douglas]

aol.com>

=20

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:01:23 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn <osugeograp=
=20

Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemor=

ation ceremonies in France)=20

=C2=A0=20

1. Barack Obama, 2010=20
2. Barack Obama, 2011=20
3. Barack Obama, 2012=20
4. Barack Obama, 2013"

=20

Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did =

not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

=20
Duke:=20

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day commem=

oration

ceremonies in France"

=20
Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day c=

ommemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

=20
But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.
=20
Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slop=

e is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made han=
dbasket.

=20

1. Barack Obama, 2010=20
2. Barack Obama, 2011=20
3. Barack Obama, 2012=20
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
=20
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. That=

happens,

you know.=20

=20
The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013 =

as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

=20
They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as Presid=

ent Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you, =
Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he was=
there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on the =
order of yours.

=20
I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke) =

are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."

=20
I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but =

not a lie.

=20
But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.
=20
Marvin Sebourn

You're being quite punctilious about getting the facts straight.
Duke don't care about no steenkin' facts.

If he thinks he's winning, he doesn't need facts. And, for poor poor dukie, he thinks having the last word always means you're winning. Since his brain development was stunted by childhood religious brainwashing, he seems incapable of understanding that it doesn't.

[duke]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration
ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

Actually, you've NEVER received a lie form me.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.
Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slope is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made handbasket.

Post by duke
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. That happens,
you know.

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013 as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

He didn't in 2014 according to the dates.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as President Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you,
Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on the order of yours.

But you notice there is no data for 2009. By all reasoning, 2009 was his first
year in office. He may have gone then, but it would appear not again. 2009 was
possibly a photo shoot.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke) are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."
I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but not a lie.
But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.

Mistakes are not lies. Like you, I do make mistakes, but I NEVER lie on the ng.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration
ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

Actually, you've NEVER received a lie form me.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.
Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slope is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made handbasket.

Post by duke
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. That happens,
you know.

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013 as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

He didn't in 2014 according to the dates.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as President Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you,
Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on the order of yours.

But you notice there is no data for 2009. By all reasoning, 2009 was his first
year in office. He may have gone then, but it would appear not again. 2009 was
possibly a photo shoot.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke) are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."
I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but not a lie.
But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.

Mistakes are not lies.

.> Like you, I do make mistakes, but I NEVER lie on the ng.

Yeah? Tell us again about Jeanne being a lesbian.
Along, of course, with your evidence that she is in fact a lesbian:










AA

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Jeanne Douglas]

l.com>

Post by duke
=20

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn <osugeography=

@aol.com>

Post by duke

=20

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:01:23 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn <osugeogra=
=20

Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemo=

ration ceremonies in France)=20

Post by duke

=C2=A0=20

1. Barack Obama, 2010=20
2. Barack Obama, 2011=20
3. Barack Obama, 2012=20
4. Barack Obama, 2013"

=20

Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did=

not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Post by duke

Duke:=20

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day comme=

moration

Post by duke

ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day =

commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

Post by duke
=20
Actually, you've NEVER received a lie form me.
=20

But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.

=20

Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slo=

pe is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made ha=
ndbasket.

Post by duke

1. Barack Obama, 2010=20
2. Barack Obama, 2011=20
3. Barack Obama, 2012=20
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
=20
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. Tha=

t happens,

Post by duke

you know.=20

=20

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013=

as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

Post by duke
=20
He didn't in 2014 according to the dates.
=20

They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as Presi=

dent Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you,=
=20

Post by duke

Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he =

was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on t=
he order of yours.

Post by duke
=20
But you notice there is no data for 2009. By all reasoning, 2009 was his=

first

Post by duke
year in office. He may have gone then, but it would appear not again. 2=

009 was

Post by duke
possibly a photo shoot.
=20

I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke)=

are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."

Post by duke

I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but=

not a lie.

Post by duke

But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.

=20
Mistakes are not lies.=20

.> Like you, I do make mistakes, but I NEVER lie on the ng.
Yeah? Tell us again about Jeanne being a lesbian.

He'll tell you that I said I don't consider it an insult for him to call me a lesbian. Even though I have told him I'm not (which he will lie about).

[Atlatl Axolotl]

l.com>

Post by duke
=20

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn <osugeography=

@aol.com>

Post by duke

=20

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:01:23 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn <osugeogra=
=20

Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemo=

ration ceremonies in France)=20

Post by duke

=C2=A0=20

1. Barack Obama, 2010=20
2. Barack Obama, 2011=20
3. Barack Obama, 2012=20
4. Barack Obama, 2013"

=20

Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did=

not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Post by duke

Duke:=20

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day comme=

moration

Post by duke

ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day =

commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

Post by duke
=20
Actually, you've NEVER received a lie form me.
=20

But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.

=20

Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slo=

pe is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made ha=
ndbasket.

Post by duke

1. Barack Obama, 2010=20
2. Barack Obama, 2011=20
3. Barack Obama, 2012=20
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
=20
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. Tha=

t happens,

Post by duke

you know.=20

=20

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013=

as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

Post by duke
=20
He didn't in 2014 according to the dates.
=20

They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as Presi=

dent Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you,=
=20

Post by duke

Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he =

was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on t=
he order of yours.

Post by duke
=20
But you notice there is no data for 2009. By all reasoning, 2009 was his=

first

Post by duke
year in office. He may have gone then, but it would appear not again. 2=

009 was

Post by duke
possibly a photo shoot.
=20

I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke)=

are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."

Post by duke

I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but=

not a lie.

Post by duke

But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.

=20
Mistakes are not lies.=20

.> Like you, I do make mistakes, but I NEVER lie on the ng.

.> > Yeah? Tell us again about Jeanne being a lesbian.
.> > Along, of course, with your evidence that she is in fact a lesbian:
.> He'll tell you that I said I don't consider it an insult for him to call me a lesbian. Even though I have told him I'm not (which he will lie about).

Oh, I've brought that very link up a couple of times this week.

But he says you've made "other comments" as well.

So I asked him to show me some of your "other comments".

I suspect I'll have time to write my seven volume autobiography
and compose a couple of symphonies while I'm waiting for
him to get back to me on that.

(also, I linked to your bit about Raylan Givens)


AA

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

l.com>

Post by duke
=20

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn <osugeography=

@aol.com>

Post by duke

=20

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:01:23 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn <osugeogra=
=20

Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemo=

ration ceremonies in France)=20

Post by duke

=C2=A0=20

1. Barack Obama, 2010=20
2. Barack Obama, 2011=20
3. Barack Obama, 2012=20
4. Barack Obama, 2013"

=20

Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did=

not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Post by duke

Duke:=20

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day comme=

moration

Post by duke

ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day =

commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

Post by duke
=20
Actually, you've NEVER received a lie form me.
=20

But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.

=20

Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slo=

pe is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made ha=
ndbasket.

Post by duke

1. Barack Obama, 2010=20
2. Barack Obama, 2011=20
3. Barack Obama, 2012=20
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
=20
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. Tha=

t happens,

Post by duke

you know.=20

=20

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013=

as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

Post by duke
=20
He didn't in 2014 according to the dates.
=20

They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as Presi=

dent Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you,=
=20

Post by duke

Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he =

was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on t=
he order of yours.

Post by duke
=20
But you notice there is no data for 2009. By all reasoning, 2009 was his=

first

Post by duke
year in office. He may have gone then, but it would appear not again. 2=

009 was

Post by duke
possibly a photo shoot.
=20

I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke)=

are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."

Post by duke

I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but=

not a lie.

Post by duke

But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.

=20
Mistakes are not lies.=20

.> Like you, I do make mistakes, but I NEVER lie on the ng.

.> > Yeah? Tell us again about Jeanne being a lesbian.
.> He'll tell you that I said I don't consider it an insult for him to call me a lesbian. Even though I have told him I'm not (which he will lie about).
Oh, I've brought that very link up a couple of times this week.
But he says you've made "other comments" as well.
So I asked him to show me some of your "other comments".
I suspect I'll have time to write my seven volume autobiography
and compose a couple of symphonies while I'm waiting for
him to get back to me on that.
(also, I linked to your bit about Raylan Givens)
AA

do you think you are deceiving the world every day by doing this?

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

l.com>

Post by duke
=20

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn <osugeography=

@aol.com>

Post by duke

=20

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:01:23 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn <osugeogra=
=20

Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemo=

ration ceremonies in France)=20

Post by duke

=C2=A0=20

1. Barack Obama, 2010=20
2. Barack Obama, 2011=20
3. Barack Obama, 2012=20
4. Barack Obama, 2013"

=20

Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did=

not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Post by duke

Duke:=20

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day comme=

moration

Post by duke

ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day =

commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

Post by duke
=20
Actually, you've NEVER received a lie form me.
=20

But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.

=20

Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slo=

pe is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made ha=
ndbasket.

Post by duke

1. Barack Obama, 2010=20
2. Barack Obama, 2011=20
3. Barack Obama, 2012=20
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
=20
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. Tha=

t happens,

Post by duke

you know.=20

=20

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013=

as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

Post by duke
=20
He didn't in 2014 according to the dates.
=20

They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as Presi=

dent Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you,=
=20

Post by duke

Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he =

was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on t=
he order of yours.

Post by duke
=20
But you notice there is no data for 2009. By all reasoning, 2009 was his=

first

Post by duke
year in office. He may have gone then, but it would appear not again. 2=

009 was

Post by duke
possibly a photo shoot.
=20

I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke)=

are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."

Post by duke

I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but=

not a lie.

Post by duke

But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.

=20
Mistakes are not lies.=20

.> Like you, I do make mistakes, but I NEVER lie on the ng.

.> > Yeah? Tell us again about Jeanne being a lesbian.
.> He'll tell you that I said I don't consider it an insult for him to call me a lesbian. Even though I have told him I'm not (which he will lie about).
Oh, I've brought that very link up a couple of times this week.
But he says you've made "other comments" as well.
So I asked him to show me some of your "other comments".
I suspect I'll have time to write my seven volume autobiography
and compose a couple of symphonies while I'm waiting for
him to get back to me on that.
(also, I linked to your bit about Raylan Givens)

Yes, I got a chuckle out of that. I must have posted that while watching the final season of the show.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration
ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

Actually, you've NEVER received a lie form me.

Short term memory loss, Duke? Earlier in the thread you said you would acknowledge if you spoke falsely, in your statements regarding President Obama's presence at D-Day ceremonies in France.

I showed that he was present on two occasions during his presidency, and I asked, if you were wrong in saying that he never had been there: >1) Will you acknowledge that you were mistaken?

And you replied: "If I was." You were shown to be wrong, but you refused to acknowledge it, making you statement a lie.

And I asked you, concerning my statement that he had been there, and that you had not spoken truthfully when you said President Obama is the only President that has not attended a D-Day ceremony in France I asked you: "2) (If you are wrong) Will you acknowledge that I told the truth?

And you replied:
"If you did."
You were shown to be wrong, but you refused to acknowledge it, making you statement a lie.

And I asked you, if in this post yo see that I told the truth: "3) Will you acknowledge that you lied when you wrote in this post, speaking of me, that "So you (Marvin) are a dirty liar."

And Duke wrote: "If I did. "
You were shown to be wrong, but you refused to acknowledge it, making you statement a lie.

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.
Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slope is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made handbasket.

Post by duke
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. That happens,
you know.

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013 as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

He didn't in 2014 according to the dates.

No. Duke, the listing did not include 2014. Are you really so poor at reading comprehension that you believe what you wrote: "He didn't in 2014 according to the dates." means anything?

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as President Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you,
Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on the order of yours.

But you notice there is no data for 2009. By all reasoning, 2009 was his first
year in office. He may have gone then, but it would appear not again. 2009 was
possibly a photo shoot.

There is obviously no data for 2009 as it was slyly omitted. First you said he had never been to a D-Day memorial in France, and now you bleat "He may have gone then..."

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke) are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."
I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but not a lie.
But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.

Duke wrote: Mistakes are not lies.

They are if you keep upholding them as truth when you have been shown not to have told the truth.

And you refused to acknowledge you didn't tell the truth, doubling down in you "mistakes", which have become lies.

Duke wrote: "Like you, I do make mistakes..."
But you never acknowledge them, Duke.

Possibly my biggest mistake was thinking that in this NG, you would be capable of a reasonable, honest discussion.

Duke wrote: "...but I NEVER lie on the ng."

Of course you do, Duke.

You lied about President Obama never being present at a D-Day ceremony in France. Another lie, Duke.

You lied when you said every American President had attended ceremonies there since 1945. Another lie, Duke.

You lied about saying you would acknowledge if your statements were false, see above. You didn't. Another lie of yours, Duke.

You lied about acknowledging that you were incorrect, if my statements were true. You made no acknowledgement. Another lie, Duke.

You lied about acknowledging that you had untruthfully called me a liar. You didn't do that. You lied, Duke, again.

Okay Duke. At least five lies from you.

And numerous ones from the past.

Duke, it's not so much that you make a mistake, it's that when you are shown to have made a mistake, you refuse to acknowledge the mistake, make the same claim again, and turn your mistake into your lie.

And you try to be a bully, particularly towards the women here. But your reading comprehension and/or your critical reasoning and/or your memory AND your twisted ethics make that impossible. You are an ineffectual bully.

You refer to "feminazis" freely here, and seem to direct this towards a couple of the ladies here who have Jewish roots. This is disgusting. Despicable. But you do it in stride.

You seem to be losing control of your emotions. You called me a "dirty liar", when you lied and I told the truth. You called someone else here a dirty bastard", saying that they lied. If you have proof, show it. But you never do.

Beneath contempt.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Cloud Hobbit]

I think he's right at contemptible.

Wait, is despicable lower than contemptible?

If so, then he could be beneath contemptible.

The really sad part is he thinks he fools anyone by lying.

[Ted]

Post by Cloud Hobbit
I think he's right at contemptible.
Wait, is despicable lower than contemptible?
If so, then he could be beneath contemptible.
The really sad part is he thinks he fools anyone by lying.

And that he doesn't know how badly his lying hurts himself.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France)

 

Post by Marvin Sebourn
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration
ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

Actually, you've NEVER received a lie form me.

Short term memory loss, Duke? Earlier in the thread you said you would acknowledge if you spoke falsely, in your statements regarding President Obama's presence at D-Day ceremonies in France.
I showed that he was present on two occasions during his presidency, and I asked, if you were wrong in saying that he never had been there: >1) Will you acknowledge that you were mistaken?
And you replied: "If I was." You were shown to be wrong, but you refused to acknowledge it, making you statement a lie.
And I asked you, concerning my statement that he had been there, and that you had not spoken truthfully when you said President Obama is the only President that has not attended a D-Day ceremony in France I asked you: "2) (If you are wrong) Will you acknowledge that I told the truth?
"If you did."
You were shown to be wrong, but you refused to acknowledge it, making you statement a lie.
And I asked you, if in this post yo see that I told the truth: "3) Will you acknowledge that you lied when you wrote in this post, speaking of me, that "So you (Marvin) are a dirty liar."
And Duke wrote: "If I did. "
You were shown to be wrong, but you refused to acknowledge it, making you statement a lie.

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.
Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The slope is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made handbasket.

Post by duke
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. That happens,
you know.

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists 2013 as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

He didn't in 2014 according to the dates.

No. Duke, the listing did not include 2014. Are you really so poor at reading comprehension that you believe what you wrote: "He didn't in 2014 according to the dates." means anything?

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as President Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you,
Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were on the order of yours.

But you notice there is no data for 2009. By all reasoning, 2009 was his first
year in office. He may have gone then, but it would appear not again. 2009 was
possibly a photo shoot.

There is obviously no data for 2009 as it was slyly omitted. First you said he had never been to a D-Day memorial in France, and now you bleat "He may have gone then..."

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you (Duke) are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."
I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but not a lie.
But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.

Duke wrote: Mistakes are not lies.

They are if you keep upholding them as truth when you have been shown not to have told the truth.
And you refused to acknowledge you didn't tell the truth, doubling down in you "mistakes", which have become lies.
Duke wrote: "Like you, I do make mistakes..."
But you never acknowledge them, Duke.
Possibly my biggest mistake was thinking that in this NG, you would be capable of a reasonable, honest discussion.
Duke wrote: "...but I NEVER lie on the ng."
Of course you do, Duke.
You lied about President Obama never being present at a D-Day ceremony in France. Another lie, Duke.
You lied when you said every American President had attended ceremonies there since 1945. Another lie, Duke.
You lied about saying you would acknowledge if your statements were false, see above. You didn't. Another lie of yours, Duke.
You lied about acknowledging that you were incorrect, if my statements were true. You made no acknowledgement. Another lie, Duke.
You lied about acknowledging that you had untruthfully called me a liar. You didn't do that. You lied, Duke, again.
Okay Duke. At least five lies from you.
And numerous ones from the past.
Duke, it's not so much that you make a mistake, it's that when you are shown to have made a mistake, you refuse to acknowledge the mistake, make the same claim again, and turn your mistake into your lie.
And you try to be a bully, particularly towards the women here. But your reading comprehension and/or your critical reasoning and/or your memory AND your twisted ethics make that impossible. You are an ineffectual bully.
You refer to "feminazis" freely here, and seem to direct this towards a couple of the ladies here who have Jewish roots. This is disgusting. Despicable. But you do it in stride.
You seem to be losing control of your emotions. You called me a "dirty liar", when you lied and I told the truth. You called someone else here a dirty bastard", saying that they lied. If you have proof, show it. But you never do.

Correction. I wrote that you called someone a "dirty bastard". That was a mistake. You called Ted a "filthy bastard". So classy, Duke. God must be so proud of you.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Beneath contempt.
Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke wrote: "The occasions were: (Presidents missing D-Day
commemoration ceremonies in France)
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Ah Duke, look how slyly this was written. Yes, President Obama did
not attend in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the only years listed.

Did you get the line I published about "Presidents missing D-Day commemoration
ceremonies in France"

Of course I got the lie you "published" about "Presidents missing D-Day
commemoration ceremonies in France". Then again, we get many lies from you.

Actually, you've NEVER received a lie form me.

Short term memory loss, Duke? Earlier in the thread you said you would
acknowledge if you spoke falsely, in your statements regarding President
Obama's presence at D-Day ceremonies in France.
I showed that he was present on two occasions during his presidency, and
I asked, if you were wrong in saying that he never had been there: >1)
Will you acknowledge that you were mistaken?
And you replied: "If I was." You were shown to be wrong, but you refused
to acknowledge it, making you statement a lie.
And I asked you, concerning my statement that he had been there, and that
you had not spoken truthfully when you said President Obama is the only
"2) (If you are wrong) Will you acknowledge that I told the truth?
"If you did."
You were shown to be wrong, but you refused to acknowledge it, making you statement a lie.
And I asked you, if in this post yo see that I told the truth: "3) Will
you acknowledge that you lied when you wrote in this post, speaking of
me, that "So you (Marvin) are a dirty liar."
And Duke wrote: "If I did. "
You were shown to be wrong, but you refused to acknowledge it, making you statement a lie.

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
But you were too cowardly to admit it was a lie.
Your lies are on the slippery slope from occasional to frequent. The
slope is greased. You are going to your personal Hell in your own home-made handbasket.

Post by duke
1. Barack Obama, 2010
2. Barack Obama, 2011
3. Barack Obama, 2012
4. Barack Obama, 2013"
Heeheehee. The site I found may have been published before 2014. That happens,
you know.

The site wouldn't have been published before 2013, because it lists
2013 as a non-appearance date for President Obama.

He didn't in 2014 according to the dates.

No. Duke, the listing did not include 2014. Are you really so poor at
reading comprehension that you believe what you wrote: "He didn't in 2014
according to the dates." means anything?

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
They slyly said (and you agreed) that they didn't mention 2009, as
President Obama had visited there that year. I'll try and simplify this for you,
Duke--if they knew he wasn't there in 2013, they would have known if he
was there in 2009. Unless their research skills and their honesty were
on the order of yours.

But you notice there is no data for 2009. By all reasoning, 2009 was his first
year in office. He may have gone then, but it would appear not again. 2009 was
possibly a photo shoot.

There is obviously no data for 2009 as it was slyly omitted. First you
said he had never been to a D-Day memorial in France, and now you bleat
"He may have gone then..."

Post by duke

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I said a few weeks ago in a thread here that: "But I do think you
(Duke) are more honest than President Trump. And likely a good deal smarter."
I admit that I was grievously wrong in both cases, Duke. My mistake, but not a lie.
But I wasn't mistaken about your lying.

Duke wrote: Mistakes are not lies.

They are if you keep upholding them as truth when you have been shown not
to have told the truth.
And you refused to acknowledge you didn't tell the truth, doubling down
in you "mistakes", which have become lies.
Duke wrote: "Like you, I do make mistakes..."
But you never acknowledge them, Duke.
Possibly my biggest mistake was thinking that in this NG, you would be
capable of a reasonable, honest discussion.
Duke wrote: "...but I NEVER lie on the ng."
Of course you do, Duke.
You lied about President Obama never being present at a D-Day ceremony in
France. Another lie, Duke.
You lied when you said every American President had attended ceremonies
there since 1945. Another lie, Duke.
You lied about saying you would acknowledge if your statements were
false, see above. You didn't. Another lie of yours, Duke.
You lied about acknowledging that you were incorrect, if my statements
were true. You made no acknowledgement. Another lie, Duke.
You lied about acknowledging that you had untruthfully called me a liar.
You didn't do that. You lied, Duke, again.
Okay Duke. At least five lies from you.
And numerous ones from the past.
Duke, it's not so much that you make a mistake, it's that when you are
shown to have made a mistake, you refuse to acknowledge the mistake, make
the same claim again, and turn your mistake into your lie.
And you try to be a bully, particularly towards the women here. But your
reading comprehension and/or your critical reasoning and/or your memory
AND your twisted ethics make that impossible. You are an ineffectual bully.
You refer to "feminazis" freely here, and seem to direct this towards a
couple of the ladies here who have Jewish roots. This is disgusting.
Despicable. But you do it in stride.
You seem to be losing control of your emotions. You called me a "dirty
liar", when you lied and I told the truth. You called someone else here a
dirty bastard", saying that they lied. If you have proof, show it. But you never do.
Beneath contempt.
Marvin Sebourn

LOL. Duke is subhuman, on the level of a rodent. You treated him with far
more respect than he deserves. Rodents just bite and scratch whenever you
do that.

[Tim]

Post by duke

Post by raven1

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I killfiled Duke for exactly that reason: he blatantly lies about what
was said earlier in the conversation, and then denies he's lying, even
with the conversation still there for anyone to easily see that he's
lying. Donald Trump is more honest than Duke.

And yet you have never been able to show an example of that.

I have, and you lied about that when I did, fat boy.

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by Tim
I have, and you lied about that when I did, fat boy.

Now you are calling yourself names ...

So you are telling the truth in your mind, yet since it is sockpuppetry which is deception, it is still a lie ...

[Tim]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Tim
I have, and you lied about that when I did, fat boy.

Now you are calling yourself names ...

No, you just can't read, criminal yost.

Post by TheRealMccoy
So you are telling the truth in your mind, yet since it is sockpuppetry which is deception, it is still a lie ...

You're the sockpuppet here, criminal yost AKA Prince Michael...

[duke]

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I didn't say it, you did.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I didn't say it, you did.

Yep, here's what was said. It's hilarious:


Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."

Duke: "That's not the tension in the ropes, stupid ass. You smelled from
the getgo. Some D student. Haahaahaa. You can't even solve your own
problem, like as you said, it's sooooo easy. Haahaahaa"
http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x (August 30)

Duke: "You're playing dodge ball, teddie the fairy. You tried to say that
the vertical component of tension in the rope was W/2. You got caught with
your pants down around your ankles." http://tinyurl.com/y7jzk447 (August
31)

LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

[Patrick]

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

I read that. Decades ago.

All I remember now is being rather impressed.

Atl

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

I read that. Decades ago.
All I remember now is being rather impressed.

It's a huge classic.

[Ted]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

I read that. Decades ago.
All I remember now is being rather impressed.

It's a huge classic.

I recommended it to Patrick a few days ago.

[Ted]

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

[Patrick]

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

Starts in Boston - goes through Southern Caribbean - to Ft Lauderdale.
https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/cruises/?departureCode_BOS=true&durationCode_12plus=true&shipCode_SR=true

[Ted]

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

Starts in Boston - goes through Southern Caribbean - to Ft Lauderdale.
https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/cruises/?departureCode_BOS=true&durationCode_12plus=true&shipCode_SR=true

Wow, so cool! :)

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

Starts in Boston - goes through Southern Caribbean - to Ft Lauderdale.
https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/cruises/?departureCode_BOS=true&durationCode_12plus=true&shipCode_SR=true

Wow, so cool! :)

A couple of those stops will probably still be recovering from Irma. Leave lots of tourist dollars there.

[Ted]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

Starts in Boston - goes through Southern Caribbean - to Ft Lauderdale.
https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/cruises/?departureCode_BOS=true&durationCode_12plus=true&shipCode_SR=true

Wow, so cool! :)

A couple of those stops will probably still be recovering from Irma.
Leave lots of tourist dollars there.

That's nice of you. :)

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Ted

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

Starts in Boston - goes through Southern Caribbean - to Ft Lauderdale.
https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/cruises/?departureCode_BOS=true&durationCode_12plus=true&shipCode_SR=true

Wow, so cool! :)

A couple of those stops will probably still be recovering from Irma.
Leave lots of tourist dollars there.

That's nice of you. :)

What else is there to say in the midst of such a catastrophe?

[Ted]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

Starts in Boston - goes through Southern Caribbean - to Ft Lauderdale.
https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/cruises/?departureCode_BOS=true&durationCode_12plus=true&shipCode_SR=true

Wow, so cool! :)

A couple of those stops will probably still be recovering from Irma.
Leave lots of tourist dollars there.

That's nice of you. :)

What else is there to say in the midst of such a catastrophe?

That's because you're an angel.

[Smiler]

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

On the water?

[Ted]

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

On the water?

Ohhh! Makes sense. (I guess.)

[Smiler]

Post by Ted

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

On the water?

Ohhh! Makes sense. (I guess.)

He could be 'cruising' down main street.

[Ted]

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

On the water?

Ohhh! Makes sense. (I guess.)

He could be 'cruising' down main street.

LOL. True enough.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Ted

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

On the water?

Ohhh! Makes sense. (I guess.)

Then why is there a car called the Land Cruiser?

[Ted]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

On the water?

Ohhh! Makes sense. (I guess.)

Then why is there a car called the Land Cruiser?

Oh yeah. :)

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

And which cruise line? (My sister works for Princess.)

[Ted]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

And which cruise line? (My sister works for Princess.)

I think he said it goes from Boston to the Caribbean.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Ted

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

And which cruise line? (My sister works for Princess.)

I think he said it goes from Boston to the Caribbean.

Yeah, I looked it up. It's Royal Caribbean.

[Ted]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

And which cruise line? (My sister works for Princess.)

I think he said it goes from Boston to the Caribbean.

Yeah, I looked it up. It's Royal Caribbean.

Cool. I never knew they can leave from so far away.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

And which cruise line? (My sister works for Princess.)

Sweet, Jeanne. My first cruise, a transatlantic, was on the Golden Princess, the second on the Sun Princess.

Marvin

Marvin Sebourn

Post by Jeanne Douglas
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

And which cruise line? (My sister works for Princess.)

Sweet, Jeanne. My first cruise, a transatlantic, was on the Golden Princess, the second on the Sun Princess.

She and her hubby and daughter took their annual cruise last month, to Alaska.

Someday I want to do an Alaskan cruise.

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 12:52:25 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

And which cruise line? (My sister works for Princess.)

Sweet, Jeanne. My first cruise, a transatlantic, was on the Golden Princess, the second on the Sun Princess.

She and her hubby and daughter took their annual cruise last month, to Alaska.
Someday I want to do an Alaskan cruise.

Did the with GF as she was recovering from radiation therapy--it is a
great thing to do when one of you is generally fatigued. You don't
have to schlep your baggage around except at the beginning and end of
the trip, and you can move as much or as little as you like.

Avoid buying onshore excursions aboard the boat, though. One of the
things we wanted to see was the fish hatchery (Belgian GF had never
even heard of such a thing) and totel pole museum in Ketchikan. Sign
up aboar, and this is $40 per head; go ashore, find a bus, ask if it
goes to the fish hatchery, get aboar for $1.25 if yes. Admission to
both features was, IIRC, $13.50. On our way out, we were told to
"take the fish bus to the waterfront." We waited a bit, and sure
enough a bus painted to resemble a square salmon came along and we got
on. It's a free ride.

Should you go to Skagway, do take the excursion train on the White
Pass & Yukon RR, the narrow-gauge line built in 1898 for the gold
rush. When you get to the top of White Pass, you will see some
whithered, white, and wireless telephone poles to the west, some of
which I climbed back in '57. While these may not do much for you,
seeing them made my day on our trip.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Ted

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!
I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Sounds like a good plan. Where is your cruise?

And which cruise line? (My sister works for Princess.)

Sweet, Jeanne. My first cruise, a transatlantic, was on the Golden Princess, the second on the Sun Princess.

She and her hubby and daughter took their annual cruise last month, to Alaska.
Someday I want to do an Alaskan cruise.

My recommendation would be to go on a cruise that includes passage through Glacier Bay. I don't know if all the cruise lines go through, but I am almost positive Holland and R.C. do. Seattle or Vancouver to Seward is nice. As Don says, be careful about booking excursions--on board excursions are pricier, but if your on board excursion has transportation difficulties, the ship will wait for you and expedite your return, although a transportation failure is much less likely to happen in this area than some other areas. Mendenhall Glacier is accessible by shuttle bus, no excursion is necessary. As I remember, it is about fifteen miles from Juneau, but the shuttle is very cheap, and the attendant park rangers are very knowledgeable and helpful. Mendenhall Glacier is where I took the close up of a bear, about ten feet away and five feet below me. I've got to echo Don concerning the WP and Yukon RR, wonderfully scenic, and I have never seen Don, but have seen telephone poles he worked on. Seward was a great place for us for taking a whale-sighting excursion. Surely your sister will have many other points.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by Jeanne Douglas
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Patrick

Post by Ted
LOL. Duke was in his glory for two days because he didn't know what
"vertical component" means. :)

OK.
Guess what showed up in the mail: Canticle for Leibowitz!

Patrick: > I think I'll save it for the cruise.....

Not likely a Panama Canal transit, Patrick?

We just signed for one on HAL.

But sometimes it doesn't matter much where you're cruising.

Happy voyage, wherever. Patrick.

Marvin

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[duke]

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I didn't say it, you did.

Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."

You said the tension was W/2.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I didn't say it, you did.

Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."

You said the tension was W/2.

LOL. Duke was *so* thrilled when he thought I said that. Below is what
he's referring to. I laughed my butt off when I first realized he
didn't know what "vertical component" means, and I still laugh when he
gives me an occasion to review it as he's doing now. :)

Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."

Duke: "That's not the tension in the ropes, stupid ass. You smelled
from the getgo. Some D student. Haahaahaa.
You can't even solve your own problem, like as you said, it's sooooo
easy. Haahaahaa"
http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x (August 30)

Duke: "You're playing dodge ball, teddie the fairy. You tried to say
that the vertical component of tension in the rope was W/2. You got
caught with your pants down around your ankles."
http://tinyurl.com/y7jzk447 (August 31)


LOL. Thanks again, Duke. :)

[duke]

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I didn't say it, you did.

Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."

You said the tension was W/2.

LOL. Duke was *so* thrilled when he thought I said that. Below is what
he's referring to. I laughed my butt off when I first realized he
didn't know what "vertical component" means, and I still laugh when he
gives me an occasion to review it as he's doing now. :)

And I'm still laughing at you.

Post by Ted
Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."
Duke: "That's not the tension in the ropes, stupid ass. You smelled
from the getgo. Some D student. Haahaahaa.
You can't even solve your own problem, like as you said, it's sooooo
easy. Haahaahaa"
http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x (August 30)

I rest my case.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and
advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I didn't say it, you did.

Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."

You said the tension was W/2.

LOL. Duke was *so* thrilled when he thought I said that. Below is what
he's referring to. I laughed my butt off when I first realized he
didn't know what "vertical component" means, and I still laugh when he
gives me an occasion to review it as he's doing now. :)

And I'm still laughing at you.

Post by Ted
Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."
Duke: "That's not the tension in the ropes, stupid ass. You smelled
from the getgo. Some D student. Haahaahaa.
You can't even solve your own problem, like as you said, it's sooooo
easy. Haahaahaa"
http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x (August 30)

I rest my case.
the dukester, American-American

Incredible. You still can't see how you made an ass of yourself.

So I'll explain it to you. Ya see, Duke, when I said "the tension's
vertical component would be W/2", that was correct. It's one of the steps
in solving the problem:

You know that the tension's vertical component necessarily must be W/2
because the arrangement is symmetric, and you know the angle the rope makes
with the vertical is 45 degrees because of that symmetry and the fact that
the ropes make a right angle with each other. From those data, you can
calculate the tension in the rope is 0.7W.

You claimed to know statics very well, Duke, and this is a kindergarten
statics problem, but you still don't understand it, even after it's been
explained to you multiple times.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I didn't say it, you did.

Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."

You said the tension was W/2.

LOL. Duke was *so* thrilled when he thought I said that. Below is what
he's referring to. I laughed my butt off when I first realized he
didn't know what "vertical component" means, and I still laugh when he
gives me an occasion to review it as he's doing now. :)

And I'm still laughing at you.

Post by Ted
Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."
Duke: "That's not the tension in the ropes, stupid ass. You smelled
from the getgo. Some D student. Haahaahaa.
You can't even solve your own problem, like as you said, it's sooooo
easy. Haahaahaa"
http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x (August 30)

Duke wrote: > I rest my case.

About time, Duke, it's been dead from the start.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Ted]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Post by duke

Post by Ted

Btw, when are you going to reveal the tension in the support lines, and
advise

I'll help you get started with the solution and give you hints if you get
stuck. How's that? (After all, you said you "love statics", right?)

I've got the calculation paper right alongside my computer.

Okay. Do you remember the problem? A weight W is supported by two
ropes of equal length attached to the ceiling. The ropes make a right
angle with each other. What's the tension in the ropes?
First hint: It's clearly right/left symmetric, so the ropes each have
the same tension. What angle do they make with the vertical? Do you
need a hint on how to determine that? (If so, I won't ridicule you for
it.)
Meanwhile, go ahead and draw the vector diagram on your "calculation
paper", if you need to.

Calculated it doing the man's way.

Men admit their ignorance. You're a wuss.

You just made a HUGGGGE mistake on the statics problem.

I didn't, but please tell us what you think my mistake is.

You thought it was all vertical.

You can't read, duke. I said the vertical component is W/2.

In the previous post given by atlatl, you jumped at the notion that the rope
tension was W/2. You're a bullshit artist.

And you're a liar. I never said that once. If I had, it would be easy
enough for you to find, though. (Or for anybody else reading this who wants
to find out which of us is lying.)

I didn't say it, you did.

Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."

You said the tension was W/2.

LOL. Duke was *so* thrilled when he thought I said that. Below is what
he's referring to. I laughed my butt off when I first realized he
didn't know what "vertical component" means, and I still laugh when he
gives me an occasion to review it as he's doing now. :)

And I'm still laughing at you.

Post by Ted
Ted: "the tension's vertical component would be W/2."
Duke: "That's not the tension in the ropes, stupid ass. You smelled
from the getgo. Some D student. Haahaahaa.
You can't even solve your own problem, like as you said, it's sooooo
easy. Haahaahaa"
http://tinyurl.com/y9tw4y4x (August 30)

Duke wrote: > I rest my case.
About time, Duke, it's been dead from the start.
Marvin Sebourn

LOL. He really would be well advised just to keep his mouth shut.