Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Just a reminder

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Just a reminder


    "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
    I'd be satisfied if he confessed to lying.

    Hell, me too.

    But he can't do that. It's hurt his pride (however fragile it is).


    My statement denying what he claimed I said is proof enough. Even if you weren't lying, which is very questionable,


    Then prove I said what Andy claims I said. Google the hell out of it.

    it still doesn meet the standard of a lie because you didn't prove intent.

    All of Andy's posts prove intent. A blind man can see his intent.


    If he told the truth, he should be able to prove it. So should you.

    Yeah!!!!!!

    IF Andy had told the truth I could prove it with a cite to what I said.
    Hence, Andy didn't tell the truth, and that means he lied.


    I have no interest in what he says, only in your accusations.


    I know. You can care less (and probably encourage Andy) if he lies.



    --
    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
    Athens, Georgia



  • #2
    Just a reminder


    "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
    I'd be satisfied if he confessed to lying.

    Hell, me too.

    But he can't do that. It's hurt his pride (however fragile it is).


    My statement denying what he claimed I said is proof enough. Even if you weren't lying, which is very questionable,


    Then prove I said what Andy claims I said. Google the hell out of it.

    it still doesn meet the standard of a lie because you didn't prove intent.

    All of Andy's posts prove intent. A blind man can see his intent.


    If he told the truth, he should be able to prove it. So should you.

    Yeah!!!!!!

    IF Andy had told the truth I could prove it with a cite to what I said.
    Hence, Andy didn't tell the truth, and that means he lied.


    I have no interest in what he says, only in your accusations.


    I know. You can care less (and probably encourage Andy) if he lies.



    --
    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
    Athens, Georgia


    Comment


    • #3
      Just a reminder

      It has come to my attention that 23 weeks have passed since Andy made these
      claims:

      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
      free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
      "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."

      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
      can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."

      On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
      to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
      to be part of the National Guard."


      And 23 weeks have passed without Andy providing support for those claims.

      Andy tells lies, therefore, Andy is a liar.

      Or, he can prove me wrong and post a citation that validates his statements.




      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
      Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992), Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"

      Paul A. Thomas, CPA
      Athens, Georgia
      taxman at negia.net


      Comment


      • #4
        Just a reminder


        "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
        news:[email protected]
        It has come to my attention that 23 weeks have passed since Andy made these claims: On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks." On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand." On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed to be part of the National Guard." And 23 weeks have passed without Andy providing support for those claims. Andy tells lies, therefore, Andy is a liar.
        Then you should be able to prove it's the case. Otherwise, all you've done is
        proven that you're a slime bag for hurling accusations which you cannot
        substantiate.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just a reminder


          "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]
          It has come to my attention that 23 weeks have passed since Andy made these claims: On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks." On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand." On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed to be part of the National Guard." And 23 weeks have passed without Andy providing support for those claims. Andy tells lies, therefore, Andy is a liar.
          Then you should be able to prove it's the case. Otherwise, all you've done is
          proven that you're a slime bag for hurling accusations which you cannot
          substantiate.

          Comment


          • #6
            Just a reminder


            "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
            Andy tells lies, therefore, Andy is a liar. Then you should be able to prove it's the case.

            Even if Andy were to confess to not telling the truth, you wouldn't be
            satisfied.

            My statement denying what he claimed I said is proof enough.

            If he told the truth, he should be able to prove it.

            If he told the truth, YOU should be able to prove it.


            --
            "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
            none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
            Athens, Georgia
            taxman at negia.net





            Comment


            • #7
              Just a reminder


              "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
              Andy tells lies, therefore, Andy is a liar. Then you should be able to prove it's the case.

              Even if Andy were to confess to not telling the truth, you wouldn't be
              satisfied.

              My statement denying what he claimed I said is proof enough.

              If he told the truth, he should be able to prove it.

              If he told the truth, YOU should be able to prove it.


              --
              "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
              none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

              Paul A. Thomas, CPA
              Athens, Georgia
              taxman at negia.net





              Comment


              • #8
                Just a reminder


                "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                news:[email protected]
                "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                Andy tells lies, therefore, Andy is a liar. Then you should be able to prove it's the case.
                Even if Andy were to confess to not telling the truth, you wouldn't be satisfied.
                I'd be satisfied if he confessed to lying.
                My statement denying what he claimed I said is proof enough.
                Even if you weren't lying, which is very questionable, it still doesn meet the
                standard of a lie because you didn't prove intent.
                If he told the truth, he should be able to prove it.
                So should you.
                If he told the truth, YOU should be able to prove it.
                I have no interest in what he says, only in your accusations.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Just a reminder


                  "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:[email protected]
                  "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                  Andy tells lies, therefore, Andy is a liar. Then you should be able to prove it's the case.
                  Even if Andy were to confess to not telling the truth, you wouldn't be satisfied.
                  I'd be satisfied if he confessed to lying.
                  My statement denying what he claimed I said is proof enough.
                  Even if you weren't lying, which is very questionable, it still doesn meet the
                  standard of a lie because you didn't prove intent.
                  If he told the truth, he should be able to prove it.
                  So should you.
                  If he told the truth, YOU should be able to prove it.
                  I have no interest in what he says, only in your accusations.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just a reminder


                    "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                    news:[email protected]
                    "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                    I'd be satisfied if he confessed to lying.
                    Hell, me too. But he can't do that. It's hurt his pride (however fragile it is).
                    And you can't prove that he lied.
                    My statement denying what he claimed I said is proof enough. Even if you weren't lying, which is very questionable,
                    Then prove I said what Andy claims I said. Google the hell out of it.
                    that won't prove intent.
                    it still doesn meet the standard of a lie because you didn't prove intent. All of Andy's posts prove intent. A blind man can see his intent.

                    Then it should be easy for you to prove it.
                    If he told the truth, he should be able to prove it. So should you. Yeah!!!!!!
                    then do it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Just a reminder


                      "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                      news:[email protected]
                      "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                      I'd be satisfied if he confessed to lying.
                      Hell, me too. But he can't do that. It's hurt his pride (however fragile it is).
                      And you can't prove that he lied.
                      My statement denying what he claimed I said is proof enough. Even if you weren't lying, which is very questionable,
                      Then prove I said what Andy claims I said. Google the hell out of it.
                      that won't prove intent.
                      it still doesn meet the standard of a lie because you didn't prove intent. All of Andy's posts prove intent. A blind man can see his intent.

                      Then it should be easy for you to prove it.
                      If he told the truth, he should be able to prove it. So should you. Yeah!!!!!!
                      then do it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Just a reminder

                        YOU WIN, PAUL! YOU DID NOT SAY THAT TO OWN GUNS, INDIVIDUALS TO BELONG TO THE NATIONAL GUARD. MY MEMORY - FROM JULY 8, 2002 - ATTRIBUTED THE "not unless the militia you're talking about is the Ohio National Guard" COMMENT AS COMING FROM YOU.



                        ACTUALLY, IT WAS YOUR GOOD BUDDY "THE VACUUM", EASY2000 (wherever he went to), THAT MADE THE STATEMENT. THEN SHYSTER DAN JUMPED IN TO SUPPORT EASY 200O, AND THEN YOU JUMPED IN TO MAKE A STATEMENT WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO MEAN THAT YOU SUPPORTED DAN AND EASY ON THE NATIONAL GUARD BIT.



                        HOWEVER, I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT YOUR "They must, cause they surely don't want to be regulated, let alone well regulated" COMMENT MEANT THAT YOU AGREED FULLY WITH EASY2000. I DO APOLOGIZE. YOU STILL MIGHT WISH TO CLARIFY, HOWEVER, WHAT YOUR COMMENT WAS REALLY TRYING TO SAY. PERHAPS JUST SOME NEBULOUS HUMOR?



                        AK



                        =======================================

                        easy2000 Jul 8 2002, 10:05 am



                        Newsgroups: us.taxes



                        From: easy2000 <[email protected]> - Find messages by this author

                        Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 10:04:00 -0400



                        Subject: Re: Constitution.....

                        Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse



                        <<SNIP>>

                        ak > I'll tell you what, Shyster Dan. If IRS were to exercise either of those options, I would quickly be looking for a militia to join.





                        Sounds to me like a call for armed rebellion to overthrow the duly

                        constituted government of the United States.





                        ak> And that IS in the Constitution.



                        No, not unless the militia you're talking about is the Ohio National Guard.



                        easy2000



                        ===========================================



                        Paul Thomas Jul 8 2002, 10:20 pm



                        Newsgroups: us.taxes

                        From: "Paul Thomas" <[email protected]

                        Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 02:18:46 -0000

                        Local: Mon,Jul 8 2002 10:18 pm

                        Subject: Re: Constitution.....



                        Dan Evans <[email protected]> wrote


                        (ak)wrote:
                        "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
                        security of a free State, the right of the people to
                        keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"


                        The above is what I have in mind - providing the
                        necessary security to maintain a free state. You
                        and your Commie buds have some other take on
                        the Constitution?


                        You and your tax denier buddies have some other
                        take on the phrase "well-regulated"?




                        They must, cause they surely don't want to be regulated, let alone "well regulated".



                        --

                        Paul A. Thomas, CPA

                        Athens, Georgia

                        [email protected]

                        http://www.pat-cpa.com



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Just a reminder

                          YOU WIN, PAUL! YOU DID NOT SAY THAT TO OWN GUNS, INDIVIDUALS TO BELONG TO THE NATIONAL GUARD. MY MEMORY - FROM JULY 8, 2002 - ATTRIBUTED THE "not unless the militia you're talking about is the Ohio National Guard" COMMENT AS COMING FROM YOU.



                          ACTUALLY, IT WAS YOUR GOOD BUDDY "THE VACUUM", EASY2000 (wherever he went to), THAT MADE THE STATEMENT. THEN SHYSTER DAN JUMPED IN TO SUPPORT EASY 200O, AND THEN YOU JUMPED IN TO MAKE A STATEMENT WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO MEAN THAT YOU SUPPORTED DAN AND EASY ON THE NATIONAL GUARD BIT.



                          HOWEVER, I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT YOUR "They must, cause they surely don't want to be regulated, let alone well regulated" COMMENT MEANT THAT YOU AGREED FULLY WITH EASY2000. I DO APOLOGIZE. YOU STILL MIGHT WISH TO CLARIFY, HOWEVER, WHAT YOUR COMMENT WAS REALLY TRYING TO SAY. PERHAPS JUST SOME NEBULOUS HUMOR?



                          AK



                          =======================================

                          easy2000 Jul 8 2002, 10:05 am



                          Newsgroups: us.taxes



                          From: easy2000 <[email protected]> - Find messages by this author

                          Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 10:04:00 -0400



                          Subject: Re: Constitution.....

                          Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse



                          <<SNIP>>

                          ak > I'll tell you what, Shyster Dan. If IRS were to exercise either of those options, I would quickly be looking for a militia to join.





                          Sounds to me like a call for armed rebellion to overthrow the duly

                          constituted government of the United States.





                          ak> And that IS in the Constitution.



                          No, not unless the militia you're talking about is the Ohio National Guard.



                          easy2000



                          ===========================================



                          Paul Thomas Jul 8 2002, 10:20 pm



                          Newsgroups: us.taxes

                          From: "Paul Thomas" <[email protected]

                          Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 02:18:46 -0000

                          Local: Mon,Jul 8 2002 10:18 pm

                          Subject: Re: Constitution.....



                          Dan Evans <[email protected]> wrote


                          (ak)wrote:
                          "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
                          security of a free State, the right of the people to
                          keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"


                          The above is what I have in mind - providing the
                          necessary security to maintain a free state. You
                          and your Commie buds have some other take on
                          the Constitution?


                          You and your tax denier buddies have some other
                          take on the phrase "well-regulated"?




                          They must, cause they surely don't want to be regulated, let alone "well regulated".



                          --

                          Paul A. Thomas, CPA

                          Athens, Georgia

                          [email protected]

                          http://www.pat-cpa.com



                          Comment


                          • #14
                            correction

                            YOU WIN, PAUL! YOU DID NOT SAY THAT TO OWN GUNS, INDIVIDUALS HAD TO BELONG
                            TO THE NATIONAL GUARD. MY MEMORY - FROM JULY 8, 2002 - ATTRIBUTED THE "not
                            unless the militia you're talking about is the Ohio National Guard" COMMENT
                            AS COMING FROM YOU.

                            ACTUALLY, IT WAS YOUR GOOD BUDDY "THE VACUUM", EASY2000 (wherever he went
                            to), THAT MADE THE STATEMENT. THEN SHYSTER DAN JUMPED IN TO SUPPORT EASY
                            200O, AND THEN YOU JUMPED IN TO MAKE A STATEMENT WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN
                            TO MEAN THAT YOU SUPPORTED DAN AND EASY ON THE NATIONAL GUARD BIT.

                            HOWEVER, I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT YOUR "They must, cause they
                            surely don't want to be regulated, let alone well regulated" COMMENT MEANT
                            THAT YOU AGREED FULLY WITH EASY2000. I DO APOLOGIZE. YOU STILL MIGHT WISH TO
                            CLARIFY, HOWEVER, WHAT YOUR COMMENT WAS REALLY TRYING TO SAY. PERHAPS JUST
                            SOME NEBULOUS HUMOR?

                            AK

                            =======================================
                            easy2000 Jul 8 2002, 10:05 am

                            Newsgroups: us.taxes

                            From: easy2000 <[email protected]> - Find messages by this author
                            Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 10:04:00 -0400

                            Subject: Re: Constitution.....
                            Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
                            Report Abuse

                            <<SNIP>>
                            ak > I'll tell you what, Shyster Dan. If IRS were to exercise either of
                            those options, I would quickly be looking for a militia to join.


                            Sounds to me like a call for armed rebellion to overthrow the duly
                            constituted government of the United States.


                            ak> And that IS in the Constitution.

                            No, not unless the militia you're talking about is the Ohio National Guard.

                            easy2000

                            ===========================================

                            Paul Thomas Jul 8 2002, 10:20 pm

                            Newsgroups: us.taxes
                            From: "Paul Thomas" <[email protected]
                            Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 02:18:46 -0000
                            Local: Mon,Jul 8 2002 10:18 pm
                            Subject: Re: Constitution.....

                            Dan Evans <[email protected]> wrote
                            (ak)wrote:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
                            The above is what I have in mind - providing the necessary security to maintain a free state. You and your Commie buds have some other take on the Constitution?
                            You and your tax denier buddies have some other take on the phrase "well-regulated"?

                            They must, cause they surely don't want to be regulated, let alone "well
                            regulated".

                            --
                            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                            Athens, Georgia
                            [email protected]
                            http://www.pat-cpa.com



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              correction

                              YOU WIN, PAUL! YOU DID NOT SAY THAT TO OWN GUNS, INDIVIDUALS HAD TO BELONG
                              TO THE NATIONAL GUARD. MY MEMORY - FROM JULY 8, 2002 - ATTRIBUTED THE "not
                              unless the militia you're talking about is the Ohio National Guard" COMMENT
                              AS COMING FROM YOU.

                              ACTUALLY, IT WAS YOUR GOOD BUDDY "THE VACUUM", EASY2000 (wherever he went
                              to), THAT MADE THE STATEMENT. THEN SHYSTER DAN JUMPED IN TO SUPPORT EASY
                              200O, AND THEN YOU JUMPED IN TO MAKE A STATEMENT WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN
                              TO MEAN THAT YOU SUPPORTED DAN AND EASY ON THE NATIONAL GUARD BIT.

                              HOWEVER, I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT YOUR "They must, cause they
                              surely don't want to be regulated, let alone well regulated" COMMENT MEANT
                              THAT YOU AGREED FULLY WITH EASY2000. I DO APOLOGIZE. YOU STILL MIGHT WISH TO
                              CLARIFY, HOWEVER, WHAT YOUR COMMENT WAS REALLY TRYING TO SAY. PERHAPS JUST
                              SOME NEBULOUS HUMOR?

                              AK

                              =======================================
                              easy2000 Jul 8 2002, 10:05 am

                              Newsgroups: us.taxes

                              From: easy2000 <[email protected]> - Find messages by this author
                              Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 10:04:00 -0400

                              Subject: Re: Constitution.....
                              Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
                              Report Abuse

                              <<SNIP>>
                              ak > I'll tell you what, Shyster Dan. If IRS were to exercise either of
                              those options, I would quickly be looking for a militia to join.


                              Sounds to me like a call for armed rebellion to overthrow the duly
                              constituted government of the United States.


                              ak> And that IS in the Constitution.

                              No, not unless the militia you're talking about is the Ohio National Guard.

                              easy2000

                              ===========================================

                              Paul Thomas Jul 8 2002, 10:20 pm

                              Newsgroups: us.taxes
                              From: "Paul Thomas" <[email protected]
                              Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 02:18:46 -0000
                              Local: Mon,Jul 8 2002 10:18 pm
                              Subject: Re: Constitution.....

                              Dan Evans <[email protected]> wrote
                              (ak)wrote:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
                              The above is what I have in mind - providing the necessary security to maintain a free state. You and your Commie buds have some other take on the Constitution?
                              You and your tax denier buddies have some other take on the phrase "well-regulated"?

                              They must, cause they surely don't want to be regulated, let alone "well
                              regulated".

                              --
                              Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                              Athens, Georgia
                              [email protected]
                              http://www.pat-cpa.com



                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X