Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>Thanks for the good laugh. It's exactly my point:
>- You pretend to ignore him, but you answer his message.
>- You pretend to let him having the last word, but you answer his
> message.
>You just failed in everything you claimed. Good job.
>
>So, now, I'm ready to laugh even more: explain why you didn't failed and
>why it proves your superiority. I'm going to fetch some popcorn: it's
>going to be funny.

*sigh*

He does get the last word, if no one responds and quotes it so that I
can see it. There's not one thing wrong with plonking someone but
choosing to read and respond to the them when they get quoted. I
enjoy slapping-around stupid trolls, in moderation. Why the fsck do
think I'm here?

Get this through your head: For me it's not as simple as "I will read
everything you post" or "I will read nothing that you post".

Stop embarrassing yourself, "Stéphane". You can't beat me. I'm
better than you.

--
"Well, at least chrisv is pretending better:" - lying asshole "-hh",
lying shamelessly

On 11/23/2024 4:40 PM, shitv wrote:

> What's "silly" or a "waste of time" to you, may be fun and rewarding
> to others, you dumb fsck.

Take your own advice, jagoff:

<24h87b9hbollbrud0kdov8a5rb3csrqq3b@4ax.com>
<9vkke9dfd4ndocrk2su8qfiipre7rsfn5o@4ax.com>
<haehu1lprmb192u36hqhuamjh3029eiuf8@4ax.com>

Le 23-11-2024, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> a écrit :
> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the good laugh. It's exactly my point:
>>- You pretend to ignore him, but you answer his message.
>>- You pretend to let him having the last word, but you answer his
>> message.
>>You just failed in everything you claimed. Good job.
>>
>>So, now, I'm ready to laugh even more: explain why you didn't failed and
>>why it proves your superiority. I'm going to fetch some popcorn: it's
>>going to be funny.
>
> *sigh*

Yes, you should.

> He does get the last word, if no one responds

Yes, it's the definition. So when you answer, you don't let him having
the last word. We both agree. So you failed letting him the last word.

> and quotes it so that I can see it.

That's not in the definition of the last word. You let him having the
last word if you don't answer him. Period. If you answer, for whatever
reason, you don't let him having the last word. There is no way around.
You can tell I'm a liar as you want when your definition doesn't fit the
definition all other use. It doesn't change the fact: you don't let him
have the last word. You can pretend otherwise as much as you want, it's
a simple definition in which your claims don't fit.

> There's not one thing wrong with plonking someone but

No. Anyone can plonk anyone you want for the reason you want. I agree.

> choosing to read and respond to the them when they get quoted.

So it means you don't plonk them. If you ignore someone, you just don't
read and answer. It's very simple. Even I can understand that. How can a
superior being like you be unable to understand that?

> I enjoy slapping-around stupid trolls, in moderation.

You enjoy what you want: I don't care. It's just when you claim things
and do different things, it's obvious. You cal call everyone stating the
obvious liar and inferior being, it changes nothing: you are searching
more for excuses than for accuracy.

> Why the fsck do think I'm here?

I don't know why you are here and frankly: I don't give a damn. And you
should learn proper English, too. You are still unable to spell correctly
the only word you know: fuck. You could try to find another word if you
don't like this word. I'm learning English reading native English
speakers and if they are to limited to spell the word they chose to use
correctly, it's more difficult to improve. So if you are the superior
being you claim to be, improve.

> Get this through your head: For me it's not as simple as "I will read
> everything you post" or "I will read nothing that you post".

If you pretend to plonk someone, it should be.

> Stop embarrassing yourself, "Stéphane". You can't beat me. I'm
> better than you.

It's a little bit better than your last (snipped, unread) answer but not
by much. A superior being should be able to do better. Try again.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

Well, look at that, "Stéphane"! You got your say, unrebutted!

Is there just one "right way" to deal with unreasonable dipshits, like
you, or DumFSck, or -highhorse, or Joel, and you'll tell us what the
right way is, "Stéphane"?

While you're here, do us a favor, and tell us what is the "right way"
to live our lives in other ways. Like, how much we should spend on a
car, or how much risk we should take in investing, or how we should
allocate our time between leisure activities and productive work. You
know best, right?

Idiot.

Le 24-11-2024, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> a écrit :
> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)

Oh, did I already broke my toy?

> Well, look at that, "Stéphane"! You got your say, unrebutted!

Not unrebutted: you answred. Poorly rebutted, yes. But rebutted anyway.
Don't you understand the meaning of the words you are using? You, a
native English speaker? How non-native English speaker are supposed to
learn English when the words are poorly used?

> Is there just one "right way" to deal with unreasonable dipshits, like
> you, or DumFSck, or -highhorse, or Joel, and you'll tell us what the
> right way is, "Stéphane"?

I'm not saying there is only one way. I'm saying you don't do what you
pretend. And I'm telling you some ways are stupid, but it doesn't mean
only one way is valid. When your way accomplishes the opposite of what
you want, yes, I'm telling you it's stupid.

> While you're here, do us a favor, and tell us what is the "right way"
> to live our lives in other ways.

I'm not here to educate the retards, I'm here to have fun and speak
about Linux.

> Like, how much we should spend on a car, or how much risk we should
> take in investing, or how we should allocate our time between leisure
> activities and productive work. You know best, right?

Chose a subject related to Linux and I'll consider if I want to answer
it or not.

> Idiot.

You sound like LP/FF/NV/DG/FR/whatever, does he inspire you? At least he
is more resilient than you.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> (verbose idiocy snipped, unread)

I hope you enjoyed making a fscking asshole of yourself, again,
"Stéphane". You liar. You loser.

Le 24-11-2024, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> a écrit :
> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> (verbose idiocy snipped, unread)

OK, my toy is broken. Happily, LP/NV/DG/FR/whatever is still available.

> I hope you enjoyed making a fscking asshole of yourself, again,
> "Stéphane". You liar. You loser.

Learn you own language, you illiterate retard. It's: fucking not
fscking.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

You reading my posts, while I ignore yours, makes the the winner. You
spewing lies "behind my back" only shows everyone what a pathetic
loser you are.

You know that, don't you, "Stéphane".

Of course you do. That's why you must deny that I do it.

Le 25-11-2024, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> a écrit :
> chrisv wrote:
>
>>Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>>> (snipped, unread)
>>
>>You reading my posts,

Yes, you are really funny. So, let's have fun again. Or, if you prefer,
let me have fun at your expense.

>>while I ignore yours,

Yes, but no. You proved a lot of times you read the messages you pretend
to ignore. You don't know what filter means. You pretend it needs
courage to ignore a message. I'll tell you something: you really look
like a little child. You know, one who puts his hands on his ears
saying: "Ican'thereyouIcan'thereyouIcan'thereyou". It's funny, but a
little bit immature. You should grow up. Don't ask LP/NV/DG/whatever, he
has no more clue than you.

>> makes the the winner.

First. As I already said, the purpose of a discussion mustn't be the
victory but the improvement. It's not from me, it's a translation from
Joseph JOUBERT. As you are too stupid to improve you are left with the
victory as your only hope. Which you failed too because of the same
reason: your stupidity. So you are left with your childish way of
pretending to ignore my messages and asking me to grant you the victory.

>>You pewing lies "behind my back"

I does nothing behind your back. I send everything here for everyone to
read. Nothing's hidden. After that, it's up to you if choose to read it,
to ignore it or to pretend to ignore it. Once again, you are using words
with a wrong meaning, you should try to improve in the mastery of your
mother tongue. You'll look less idiot when you'll try to have a
discussion.

> s/makes the the winner/makes me the winner/

I'll forget your little mistake when there are bigger issues in your
message.

>>You know that, don't you, "Stéphane".

I know what? That you win? But, what did you win exactly? Do you really
like crying furiously like a little child unable to have the last word?
It looks like you are crying when I'm having fun. Do you win the right
to bash your head against the wall? You don't need me for that.

I'd rather loose when having fun and I don't want to win anything if
that makes me cry.

>>Of course you do. That's why you must deny that I do it.

What do I deny? The fact that you are miserable answering my funny
messages? Nope. The fact that being sad is better that being happy? Yes.
So if, for you, being happy is loosing and being sad is winning, yes, I
deny that too. So what? You will bash your hands again the wall to win
even more?

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 11/29/24 5:51 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 25-11-2024, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> a écrit :
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>>
>>>> (snipped, unread)
>>>
>>> You reading my posts,
>
> Yes, you are really funny. So, let's have fun again. Or, if you prefer,
> let me have fun at your expense.
>
>>> while I ignore yours,
>
> Yes, but no. You proved a lot of times you read the messages you pretend
> to ignore. You don't know what filter means. You pretend it needs
> courage to ignore a message. I'll tell you something: you really look
> like a little child. You know, one who puts his hands on his ears
> saying: "Ican'thereyouIcan'thereyouIcan'thereyou". It's funny, but a
> little bit immature. You should grow up. Don't ask LP/NV/DG/whatever, he
> has no more clue than you.
>
>>> makes the the winner.
>
> First. As I already said, the purpose of a discussion mustn't be the
> victory but the improvement. It's not from me, it's a translation from
> Joseph JOUBERT. As you are too stupid to improve you are left with the
> victory as your only hope. Which you failed too because of the same
> reason: your stupidity. So you are left with your childish way of
> pretending to ignore my messages and asking me to grant you the victory.
>
>>> You pewing lies "behind my back"
>
> I does nothing behind your back. I send everything here for everyone to
> read. Nothing's hidden. After that, it's up to you if choose to read it,
> to ignore it or to pretend to ignore it. Once again, you are using words
> with a wrong meaning, you should try to improve in the mastery of your
> mother tongue. You'll look less idiot when you'll try to have a
> discussion.
>
>> s/makes the the winner/makes me the winner/
>
> I'll forget your little mistake when there are bigger issues in your
> message.
>
>>> You know that, don't you, "Stéphane".
>
> I know what? That you win? But, what did you win exactly? Do you really
> like crying furiously like a little child unable to have the last word?
> It looks like you are crying when I'm having fun. Do you win the right
> to bash your head against the wall? You don't need me for that.
>
> I'd rather loose when having fun and I don't want to win anything if
> that makes me cry.
>
>>> Of course you do. That's why you must deny that I do it.
>
> What do I deny? The fact that you are miserable answering my funny
> messages? Nope. The fact that being sad is better that being happy? Yes.
> So if, for you, being happy is loosing and being sad is winning, yes, I
> deny that too. So what? You will bash your hands again the wall to win
> even more?
>

Well said.

What I've summarily told him in the past has been "if you don't want to
be called out for saying stupid stuff, don't say stupid stuff."

It is self-evident that he's still not learned that simple lesson.

-hh

-hh wrote:

> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> (snipped, unread)

One lying attacker supporting another, no doubt. Who could possibly
care what they say about me?

They're fscked in the head. They really are. They think that they
can beat me with their lies.

--
"Well, at least chrisv is pretending better:" - lying asshole "-hh",
lying shamelessly