Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/2/2002 10:26:18 AM EDT
At the risk of Rikwriter calling me "mean spirited" again for supporting the Boy Scouts thinking it rather stupid to let homosexuals take young boys out into the woods.... May 2, 2002 The Boy Scouts were right afterall WASHINGTON, D.C.-- If I am accurately perceiving the national controversy over pederasty in the American Roman Catholic Church, I have to conclude that the Boy Scouts of America are vindicated. The only logical conclusion deducible from the media's outrage over revelations of pederasty in the pulpit is that the Boy Scouts' ban against homosexual scout leaders is OK. The vast majority of irregularities reported in the present scandal have been between errant priests and post-pubescent boys. Apparently, the Boy Scouts' wisdom and prudence goes beyond tying knots and putting out forest fires. Maybe now the Boy Scouts will again have access to government facilities and to the largess of such charities as the United Way. It is only a matter of time before the American Catholic Church adopts the same standards for the priesthood that the Boy Scouts have maintained for Scout leaders, despite the criticisms of the politically correct. Soon, if the spirit of reform in the Church continues, every priest in the church will be able to take the Boy Scout oath without winking. Perhaps Scout leaders will soon be admitted to the priesthood, and American intellectuals will begin to speculate on when the Roman Catholic Church will finally select a Boy Scout leader as pope. The last few months' revelations that the Catholic hierarchy covered up for hundreds of priests having sexual relations with perhaps thousands of boys provoked anger all over America. Even liberal forward-lookers are angry, though now they are in the weird position of opposing homosexual priests while favoring homosexual Boy Scout leaders. Embracing such contradiction is for liberals their special art form -- but if it becomes too much a strain, there is a remedy to this contradiction, to wit: Liberals could drop their boycott of the Boy Scouts if the Boy Scouts promise to enlist homosexual priests as Scout leaders. (cont.) [url]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/emmetttyrrell/et20020502.shtml[/url] And from Ann Coulter: Should gay priest adopt? Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view – adopted by the Boy Scouts – is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.) It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests – more than 90 percent – are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser." (cont.) [url]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20020322.shtml[/url]
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 10:33:58 AM EDT
The best part is the scum coming forward to say that most of these "priests" aren't child molesters, really, because they are interested in 14, 15 year olds. That just makes them plain jane, everyday homosexuals. I feel so much better now, don't you? Feet first into a wood chipper, all of them.
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 10:40:04 AM EDT
Actually what is being said is that almost all of the cases are NOT pedophilia but pedastry, or ephebophilia. From another site: "Dr. Philip Jenkins explains that most incidents of so-called “child abuse” are not cases of pedophilia (sex with the pre-pubescent) but of ephebophilia, or sex with sexually mature minors. This comes two days after Dowd’s column in which she said that the Catholic Church was “subsidizing pedophilia.” Perhaps she will issue a correction and claim that the Church is “subsidizing ephebophilia?” Tierney is honest enough to quote Dr. Jenkins: “The experience of the Catholic Church suggests there will be problems if you send gay scoutmasters on camping trips with teenage boys.” Now we have a problem. When the Boy Scouts of America made it clear that they were going to retain their “no gay scoutmasters” policy, the New York Times censured them severely. Will the New York Times now reverse its editorial position? Will its editors say, “The Boy Scouts are absolutely right not to accept gay scoutmasters. What were we, nuts? The Times regrets the error.” Don’t hold your breath." [url]http://www.rakemag.com/features/detail.asp?catID=46&itemID=297&pg=3[/url]
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 11:14:42 AM EDT
[puke]
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 11:43:06 AM EDT
May 2, 2002 The Boy Scouts were right afterall
View Quote
Does this mean NJ employees can designate the Boy Scouts as a United Way recipient again?
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 4:03:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ChuckT: Does this mean NJ employees can designate the Boy Scouts as a United Way recipient again?
View Quote
What could it hurt to try?
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 9:26:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc:
Originally Posted By ChuckT: Does this mean NJ employees can designate the Boy Scouts as a United Way recipient again?
View Quote
What could it hurt to try?
View Quote
Screw United Way and their participation Nazi's. Give directly and UW won't get to take 10% off the top for their overhead. Wasn't there a scandal not too long ago about their head guy having a Jesse Jackosn episode?
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 9:34:03 PM EDT
Good judgement of risks and keeping to one's morality is not an irrational fear, as some would have us believe. Let's not forget that these young guys are pretty damn vulnerable, given the focus on getting signed off on one achievement after another, at the same time their judgement is still developing. As for the priests, they oughta quit whining about how the good ones are vitims of all the bad publicity and focus on the REAL victims.
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 10:13:47 PM EDT
Hah!!!! I am totally with jarhead22.... feet first baby... heck... I will rent it and haul it to whatever landfill you like... and even pay for the gas to run it too. Tree chippers sound fairly economical also. And who would EVER care what *ikWriter had to say. Dram out!
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 12:45:44 AM EDT
ONe of the largest rpograms for boys, that teaches them how to shoot Rifles, Shotguns, and Archery, Plus many of the instructors teach Hunters safty. I dont care what anybody says they are number one in my book.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:03:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc: At the risk of Rikwriter calling me "mean spirited" again for supporting the Boy Scouts thinking it rather stupid to let homosexuals take young boys out into the woods....
View Quote
The only risk is you lying about what was said...AGAIN. I've said repeatedly, in many different places, that I support the right of private organizations to have whatever membership requirements they please. I called you mean-spirited for other reasons but I now gladly admit I was wrong. You're not mean-spirited. You're an obsessive-compulsive psycho.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:04:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dramborleg: And who would EVER care what *ikWriter had to say.
View Quote
Only intelligent people. That would certainly leave you out.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 10:41:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 2:53:21 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: [b]I've said repeatedly, in many different places, that I support the right of private organizations to have whatever membership requirements they please.[/b] Yeah, OK, whatever wingnut. Funny how you never mentioned that you supported the ban on homosexuals in the Boy Scouts in the original thread. The one where you used (if I may quote myself)the effeminate Oprah-esque sissy jackass phrase "mean spirited". Funny whenever I ask you WHY you did not mention you supported them in the original thead you have never had an answer. [b]I called you mean-spirited for other reasons[/b] Of course you used this lie on the AK forum a few months back. Then I posted my exact quote followed by your "mean spirited" drivel. What happended next Rik? Do you remember? That's right, you DID NOT refute it. And if it is still archived ANYONE can go and read it for themselves. But how bout this Rik? Say you have never been caught lying on any forum. I dare you since we both know I can post a link to a still active thead on the Full Auto website that lists just a few of the lies you were caught in that you have even now still been unable to refute.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 10:58:22 AM EDT
The Boy Scouts were right afterall
View Quote
I never thought they were wrong.
The best part is the scum coming forward to say that most of these "priests" aren't child molesters, really, because they are interested in 14, 15 year olds.
View Quote
That's as funny as hearing the pro-fag shrinks say pedophiles aren't homosexual; they just like little boys. A fag is a fag is a fag. One of the "great" things about this country: No matter how disgusting the act, someone will always come to the defense of the (insert descriptive term here). Eddie
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 2:53:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc: Here is the truth that you STILL have never denied, even when I challenged you to do so on the AK forum.
View Quote
You don't read very well. I already denied your lies. You simply won't accept reality, prefering your insulated fantasy land.
How bout it Rik? Say you have never been caught lying on any forum. I dare you.
View Quote
I have never lied on any forum. Ever. I don't need to. I know that would be met with disbelief by someone like you, for whom lying is second nature, but that's your problem. Among many others.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 3:17:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 3:33:54 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: [b]You don't read very well. I already denied your lies.[/b] I suppose you think anyone is going to find this credible when the truth is that you never ONCE refuted ANY of the lies of yours I posted but instead (and only after months of still having never refuted any of them individually) only said in essence "I deny everything". LOL. [b]I have never lied on any forum.[/b] Let's just deal with one at a time. posted by Rik the liar [b]Tell that to Belloc...the logic was his, not mine. He was castigating me for not condemning Flamewhatever for making fun of retarded children. I returned the favor.[/b] To this day, some 5 or 6 months lated he STILL has never answered my charge that he lied here and to show anywhere I was "castigating" him. He never has and he never will because he knows he lied. Heck, I'm still waiting for him to "off himself" as he said he would. [url]http://www.full-auto.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=19;t=000009[/url] Just a few of Riks MANY lies: [url]http://www.full-auto.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=000034&p=[/url]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 3:33:43 PM EDT
Does ANYONE need further proof of what a netstalking obsessive-compulsive psycho Belloc is after reading the post at the link above? What's REALLY sad is the sorry waste of skin doesn't even REALIZE why his "example" is so incredibly pitiful.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 3:34:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Does ANYONE need further proof of what a netstalking obsessive-compulsive psycho Belloc is after reading the post at the link above? What's REALLY sad is the sorry waste of skin doesn't even REALIZE why his "example" is so incredibly pitiful.
View Quote
Once again when posted lie by lie Rik cannot deny them. Which is why he never has.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:18:00 PM EDT
And you've just lied again. I did deny it, and as I predicted, you're too much of a psycho nutter to even understand a denial. Hell, you're too psycho to even know what a lie IS.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:40:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 6:20:14 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: I did deny it.
View Quote
[i]refute[/i] 1. to prove something to be false or somebody to be in error through logical argument or by providing evidence to the contrary. When asked to refute the fact that you lied, when presented on the forums with your lies one by one, you have never done so. Even with JUST ONE lie posted here you still are unable to refute it. Even when I said I would leave this, the Full-AUTO, and the AK forum if you COULD refute that you lied you still could not. Since you have given ample evidence that your lying is pathological perhaps we should try a different approach: posted by Rikwriter (proven liar) [b]Tell that to Belloc...the logic was his, not mine. He was castigating me for not condemning Flamewhatever for making fun of retarded children. I returned the favor.[/b] Nowhere on the thread was this a true statement and you have never, not once, quoted me from the thread any place where I had "castigated" you "for not condemning Flamewhatever for making fun of retarted children". We both know you lied here. We both know that I can email to anyone, even one of the mods here the entire thread (if it is not still active on the AK forum) and they can read it from beginning to end and also see that you told (another) lie. But you go ahead Rik and "provide evidence" that you did not lie. And while you're at it, why not tell us why on the very thread, right after you lied, I challenged you in my VERY NEXT post to show the forum what it was you were talking about and you could not and to this day still have not. Opps.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:07:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc: [Once again when posted lie by lie Rik cannot deny them. Which is why he never has.
View Quote
Trying to retcon your own words so soon after you said them? How typical of you. Liar.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:16:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By Belloc: [Once again when posted lie by lie Rik cannot deny them. Which is why he never has.
View Quote
Trying to retcon your own words so soon after you said them? How typical of you. Liar.
View Quote
Once again whe see that when Rik's lies are posted one by one and he is asked to "refute" them, he cannot. Of course, this is nothing new.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 7:22:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc: Once again whe see that when Rik's lies are posted one by one and he is asked to "refute" them, he cannot. Of course, this is nothing new.
View Quote
What is not new is your lack of logical ability, reading comprehension and common sense. None of the out-of-context pieces of posts you've clipped has contained a single lie by me. There is nothing to refute and even if I felt like going line by line and showing you, I could not since ak-47.net is down. The fact is, you're a desperately sick man who's desperately grasping at straws to try to make me, the person you've decided is the embodiment of all that is evil, anywhere near as bad as you. You're a liar, Belloc. You're a serial liar. You can't even POST about me without lying. I know the truth galls at you, particularly since you're so poorly acquainted with it, but admitting the truth is the first step to getting help. Find a qualified therapist, man...get help and get yourself a life away from your food-stained, fluid-soaked keyboard.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:02:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 8:11:13 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: [b]None of the out-of-context pieces of posts you've clipped has contained a single lie by me.[/b] More lies from Rikwriter, Queen of liars. But here is some truth. Once when I posted a few quotes of the Founding Fathers, Rik accused me of taking the quotes out of context. When I asked how they were out of context, (4 different times) Rik refused to reply. So now he says his quotes are "out of context" (lie) but then never demonstrates how. How typical of the pathologcial liar he is. [b]There is nothing to refute and even if I felt like going line by line and showing you, I could not since ak-47.net is down.[/b] AK-47 has been down, what, a couple of hours. As anyone can see if they go to the full auto site or even do a search of this site you have not been able to refute any of the lies of yours that I posted for around 6 months. Even when I promised to leave this AND AK-47 AND Full Auto FOREVER, you could not refute anything I posted. A little hisory lesson that ANYONE here can search on this very site and verify. When I started posting here again Rik said go back to AssaultWeb. When I posted his lies and said I would leave this site forever if he refuted them, he did not. [b]The fact is, you're a desperately sick man who's desperately grasping at straws to try to make me, the person you've decided is the embodiment of all that is evil, anywhere near as bad as you.[/b] This coming from someone who calls another a "shut-in" even though he has no job and spends his day as a house mom. LOL. [b]You're a liar, Belloc. You're a serial liar. You can't even POST about me without lying.[/b] I guess that's why you STILL for over 6 months have never refuted any of your lies that I have pointed out but instead just call someone else a liar, but yet never quote or posts links to anyplace where you can show where that person lied as you falsley claim. [b]Find a qualified therapist, man...get help and get yourself a life away from your food-stained, fluid-soaked keyboard.[/b] Once the AK site goes back up it will be quite telling of your rather obvious deranged mental state to look at how your posts more often than not end in this same infantile drivel. Either you are using the sissy jackass Oprah-esque lingo of "mean spirited" (well, perhaps it is more Rosie-esque), which is easy to understand since you stay at home all day and mop floors and bake cookies, or you demonstrate your psycho-sexual obsession with "fluid soaked keyboards". At least you cleaned it up somewhat this time.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:26:02 PM EDT
Yawn. Same old Belloc, same old boring bullshit.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:38:37 PM EDT
Hey guys, lets get back to the point here!! The Catholic Church has a queer problem. The Boy Scouts took some heat for trying to prevent a queer problem. Hooray for the Boy Scouts. The PC creeps who were bashing them are clearly wrong. Seems simple enough to me!
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:58:57 PM EDT
I didn't think the Boy Scouts were wrong in the first place.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:19:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: Hey guys, lets get back to the point here!!
View Quote
If Belloc had wanted to stick by the point, he wouldn't have bothered to put a personal shot at me in his first post on it.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:41:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 10:00:06 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: Hey guys, lets get back to the point here!! The Catholic Church has a queer problem. The Boy Scouts took some heat for trying to prevent a queer problem. Hooray for the Boy Scouts. The PC creeps who were bashing them are clearly wrong. Seems simple enough to me!
View Quote
If there is anything that is simple it's Rikwriter. The point MM, is that what everyone calls the Belloc/Rikwriter flamewars STARTED with Rik's little quip that I was "mean spirited" to say that those who decide to engage in the acts of homosexual sodomy should not be allowed in the Boy Scouts. Yep, that's what started it all between us. And the TRUTH is that about a year ago I posted (here I think) that Rik had said I was "mean" because of my view and then called me a liar and claimed that he had never said any such thing. So I knew I saved the thread and upon finding it on my hardrive discovered that it was not "mean", but the just as (if not more so) effeminate "mean spirited". He then fell back to the "well, it was not because you supported the ban but because you're a jerk, (well, he said a-hole actually) that I called you mean spirited". Huh? I then posted my EXACT quote followed by his to show that up until the "mean spirited" drivel, we had actually been arguing at least mostly amicably. Heck, once he even had the courtesy to post his favorite Hilliare Belloc quote: "We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our own certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces there are no smiles."---Hilaire Belloc But that any "man" would actually use the phrase "mean spirited", was and is from a masculine point of view, incomprehensible, especially in the context of defending homosexuals in the Boy Scouts which no matter what he says now he was in fact doing. He then went from effeminacy to lunacy by then posting "why does the act have to be moral or immoral". Huh? It only went downhill from there. About a year ago he said that he always supported the Boy Scout ban. I challenged that and asked that if he supported the ban why did he call me "mean spirited" and why did he not on ANY of his posts in the thread say that he supported the ban. He never gave an answer. And besides, "All men have an instinct for conflict: at least, all healthy men." -Hilaire Belloc, From The Silence of the Sea
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:55:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 11:19:12 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: Hey guys, lets get back to the point here!!
View Quote
If Belloc had wanted to stick by the point, he wouldn't have bothered to put a personal shot at me in his first post on it.
View Quote
What, oh, you mean like the "personal shot" you took at me on the AK thread here a couple of days ago after neither of us had sought to antagonize the other here in months? A little while ago I challenge anyone at Full Auto to go over to the AK forums archives and see if this quote was not in fact true: "well, I did a webseach at the AK site and I have to tell you that while yes, Belloc was involved in flame wars with rikwriter and some of his cronies, as far as I can tell it seems his posts there are almost entirely in response to someone else there first attacking either him or AssaultWeb. Sure does look like he was just defending himself or the website where he is a moderator. If you do a websearch for the word "Belloc" it looks like a few people (mostly Rikwriter or his friends) would attack him or AssaultWeb and then would he respond in kind." So just like I pointed out here before the thread was deleted, Rik's MO is to attack first and then go into his delusional "why are you cyber-stalking me" juvenile nonsense when I defend myself or throw a counter jab.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 5:47:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc: What, oh, you mean like the "personal shot" you took at me on the AK thread here a couple of days ago after neither of us had sought to antagonize the other here in months?
View Quote
A couple of DAYS ago? Wow, besides not knowing what you're talking about, you also have no sense of time. BTW, I will take shots at you whenever I feel like it. I especially like taking shots at you on ak-47 because of the irony...you're BANNED there for being the psycho, cyberstalking troll you are. I find it delicious irony to talk about you there where you can't reply, since you played a role in getting me banned from Ass Web and continued to talk shit about me afterward. The FACT is, you are the one that has netstalked me to whatever board on which I am posting that you feel like you can get away with flaming me. If you were TRULY interested in simplye defending the indefensible (Ass Web) then you would have been attacking all those OTHER people (and there were and are many) who have criticized your little internet fiefdom. But you have no real interest in defending Ass Web, you simply want to continue to flame me because of your sick, psychosexual obsession with me.
So just like I pointed out here before the thread was deleted, Rik's MO is to attack first and then go into his delusional "why are you cyber-stalking me" juvenile nonsense when I defend myself or throw a counter jab.
View Quote
Yeah? Your OWN THREAD puts the lie to that, liar. YOU attacked first, then began whining like the psychotic baby you are when I responded to your attack. AGAIN you give a perfect example of your rampant sociopathic dishonesty by your own lying words.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 6:57:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: Feet first into a wood chipper, all of them.
View Quote
Wood chipper! Noooooooooooooo. [stick] Dammit Jarhead, didn't you learn anything from Mullah Omar? What you do is, you build a stone wall around them, and then knock the wall down with a tank! This is why we should keep Mullah Omar alive. He could come to the US and carry out his brand of Islamic law against these sorts of people. themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 7:26:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2002 7:46:03 AM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: [b]A couple of DAYS ago? Wow, besides not knowing what you're talking about, you also have no sense of time. [/b] In other words he DOES NOT DENY that he went on the attack first as he always does. [b]BTW, I will take shots at you whenever I feel like it.[/b] LOL! Here we have Rik admitting that he, on a regular basis and out of the blue, attacks me on different gun forums. And then he accuese me of having a "psycho-sexual" obsession with him! It's called projectionism Rik, seek help for it. [b]I especially like taking shots at you on ak-47 because of the irony...you're BANNED there for being the psycho, cyberstalking troll you are.[/b] As I said in my above post all I did was RESPOND to Rikwriters REPEATED nonsensical juvenile derides and here he again says that defending myself when he lies and attacks is "cyberstalking". What a wackjob! [img]http://www.full-auto.com/ubb/graemlins/whacko.gif[/img] [b]I find it delicious irony[/b] Delicious irony"?? "Mean spirited". Your truly are an effeminate sissy jackass. If anyone thinks that I am only joking when I say that Rik spends his days moping floors I assure you that I'm not. That IS what he does. He is a house mom. [b]to talk about you there where you can't reply,[/b] In other words you're an "obsessed" bloated shut-in raving sissy lunatic. But that has always been obvious. [b]since you played a role in getting me banned from Ass Web[/b] Actually it was your own mouth that got you banned. You are a liar and everyone at AssaultWeb knows it. [b]and continued to talk shit about me afterward.[/b] What, going to get those tears rolling down for us little riky? As for the "talking sh!t" about you, nope, never happened. With the exception of one or two threads (at MOST) by me to explain to others who asked why you were banned and informing them that is was because of you lies and constant attacks. So, liar, can you post ANY quote of mine from ANY thread, (that you saved or even vaguely remember) that I EVER posted about you on Assaultweb more then a month after you were banned? (Actually I don't think I ever mentioned you again on an AssaultWeb public forum more then 2 weeks after you were banned but I will give myself an extra grace period since we are talking, what, a year and a half here?) In any even you are just lying again here. [b]The FACT is, you are the one that has netstalked me to whatever board on which I am posting that you feel like you can get away with flaming me.[/b] Yes but you already admitted (finally) that you DO in fact attack me over and over again on other forums "whenever you feel like it". [b]Yeah? Your OWN THREAD puts the lie to that, liar. YOU attacked first, then began whining like the psychotic baby you are when I responded to your attack. AGAIN you give a perfect example of your rampant sociopathic dishonesty by your own lying words.[/b] Got that folks. When I said that Rik attacked first on the AK thread posted here after months of us not attacking each other he does not deny that this is in fact true. He even admits above that he does this "whenever he feels like it". In other words he just admitted he's lying.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 7:42:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2002 8:05:39 AM EDT by Belloc]
What is even more amusing then Riks psychosis is that I even asked any of Rik's yapping puppies on the AK forum if they could refute any of Riks lies I posted there (right before they banned me) and if they could I would NEVER post there again. None of them ever did. And Rik never did. In fact no one did, EVER. Not one person friend of foe, mod or member EVER said, "Hey Belloc, you're wrong to say that the quotes you gave of Rik's prove that he lied on many different occasions." Even when some of the members told me to hike my tail back to AssaultWeb and I promised I would and never return if they could say upon reading the quotes of Riks that he was not in fact caught lying, NONE of them did. NOT ONE, NOT EVER. And when I placed the same challenge here, (you know, when the AK forum was up) Rik never refuted them. I am going to make an educated guess that when the site comes back up I will find out the archives are gone and that this is why Rik, (after 6 months!), is only now saying "nuh-uh, I didn't lie, um, YOU"RE the liar, yeah, that's it, that's the ticket."
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 8:44:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc: What is even more amusing then Riks psychosis is that I even asked any of Rik's yapping puppies on the AK forum if they could refute any of Riks lies I posted there (right before they banned me) and if they could I would NEVER post there again. None of them ever did. And Rik never did.
View Quote
That's because they are more intelligent than you and realize that it's impossible to reason with you. Everyone who has any experience with you gave up on reasoning with you shortly after they realized that you were a psychosexually obsessed psychotic. Come on, Belloc baby, REFUTE that you're obsessed with me...REFUTE that you chase me around to every message board that will put up with you to start unrepentant flame wars. Go ahead...refute it. But since we're going by your rules, *I* get to decide if you've refuted it or not...
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 9:53:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 1:43:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2002 1:50:12 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: [b]That's because they are more intelligent than you and realize that it's impossible to reason with you.[/b] So you REALLY expect people here to actually believe that the reason no one ever even ATTEMPTED to deny that you had lied on the AK forum when I posted your lies and promised to leave if they would but refute EVEN ONE, the reason that some said "go back to AssaultWeb, but EVEN THEN STILL refused to deny that you lied, the reason they posted again, and again, and again, AND AGAIN, on the Belloc/Rikwriter threads but NEVER DENIED THAT YOU HAD BEEN CAUGHT LYING, was because they didn't think it worth their effort. Yeah, that makes sense wingnut. [img]http://www.full-auto.com/ubb/graemlins/whacko.gif[/img] [b]Everyone who has any experience with you gave up on reasoning with you shortly after they realized that you were a psychosexually obsessed psychotic. Come on, Belloc baby, REFUTE that you're obsessed with me...REFUTE that you chase me around to every message board that will put up with you to start unrepentant flame wars. Go ahead...refute it. But since we're going by your rules, *I* get to decide if you've refuted it or not...[/b] OK, easy enough. Ask the mod here who deleted the "why does the AK forum hate this site" who, after months, was so much a "psychosexually obsessed psychotic" that he AGAIN attacked someone who had not even mentioned him on this site in months. Answer: Rikwriter So to use your own question: [b]If Rikwriter had wanted to stick by the point, he wouldn't have bothered to put a personal shot at me in his first post on it.[/b] So why did you bother to take a personal shot at me first in the AK thread? Answer: posted by Rikwriter [b]I will take shots at you whenever I feel like it. I especially like taking shots at you on ak-47 because of the irony...you're BANNED there for being the psycho, cyberstalking troll you are. I find it delicious irony to talk about you there where you can't reply[/b] You truly are psychotic. All the mods here will be able to say is "I'm sick of this flaming but it was Rikwriter who went on the attack first." So let the mod decide if I have refuted you. 1. He knows you took the first shot on the AK thread. 2. You have already ADMITTED that you take shots without provocation because you are such a pathetic looser without a job besides moping floors and choose to live in the past, because you "feel like it" and in your "psychosexually obsessed" state you find it, and I quote "delicious". And after all this, whether or not the members or mods find that I have in fact just refuted you, at the VERY least, they can say that you only had to ask once for me to even try. You on the other hand, after 6 months now, still have not even ATTEMPTED to refute that you lied.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 1:54:17 PM EDT
And BTW I find it something to be proud of that I was banned by a site that says it has had it's own members arrested by the ATF and that it keeps files on it's members to turn over to them whenever they wish.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 2:53:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc: All the mods here will be able to say is "I'm sick of this flaming but it was Rikwriter who went on the attack first."
View Quote
How quickly you forget your own words, right at the VERY beginning of this thread:
At the risk of Rikwriter calling me "mean spirited" again for supporting the Boy Scouts thinking it rather stupid to let homosexuals take young boys out into the woods....
View Quote
You took the first shot. And of course, you whine like the pitiful creature you are when I answered back. As for what was said on ak-47.net, it was MONTHS ago, not days ago and it is hardly an excuse for you to begin the flaming anew here. If you DIDN'T want me to reply to this thread, you wouldn't have flamed me before you even cut-n-pasted someone else's words (since your own consist of nothing but unintelligent flames and mewling whines). You HAD to mention my name because you're obsessed with me in a truly pathological way. You're a sick, pitiful little excuse for a human being and I never tire of reminding you of that.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 6:54:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2002 6:58:17 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: [b]How quickly you forget your own words, right at the VERY beginning of this thread:[/b] As I have already said, those words were a counter jab for your starting this thing up again a few days ago on the "why does the AK forum hate this site". And of course you STILL have not denied that it had been MONTHS since either of us attacked the other on this site until you started it again with that "shot". [b]You took the first shot.[/b] Only after you started this up again on the AK thread of a few days ago. How about this, lets ask the mod who deleted the AK thread from this site who it was who after many months went on the attack first. If he says I did it with this thead I will leave. If he says it was you who attacked me first (again) on the AK thread posted here than you leave. You can lie all you want about it, nothing new about that. But the truth is that neither of us had mentioned the other here for quite some time until you took the first shot again because you "feel like it" because you "find it delicious". You really are a fag. Well, maybe since you mop floors FOR A LIVING you are just a "fag-hag" instead. LOL. [b]As for what was said on ak-47.net, it was MONTHS ago, not days[/b] LOL dolt! You really are a complete uneducated jackass without even the slightest reading comprehension skills. The "why does AK-47 hate this site" thread was DAYS, maybe a week, ago and it was not on the AK site BUT THIS ONE fruitloop. All those fumes from Easy Off have clearly lobotomized what little brain function you had to begin with. [b]ago and it is hardly an excuse for you to begin the flaming anew here.[/b] So why did you start again on the "why does the AK forum hate this site"? [b]You HAD to mention my name because you're obsessed with me in a truly pathological way.[/b] This coming from an effeminate half woman sissy who says things like "mean spirited" and "delicious" on gun forums and ADMITS he is a coward because he says he takes shots at a person where he KNOWS they can't reply. All one need to to comprehend what a complete pathological liar you are is to witness for themselves that you always choose to ingore the little piece of truth that NO ONE on the AK site EVER said that you were not a liar when I dared them too. That's all I asked for after posting your lies, and the never did it. They never denied the fact that you are a liar. Even when they did not want me there they STILL did not deny that you are a liar.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 7:24:36 PM EDT
It's not my reading comprehension Belloc, it's your horrible writing skills. You can't compose a coherent sentence on your own, which is why you cut and paste the words of your betters so often I suppose. Since you finally explained you meant the thread on AR15.COM ABOUT ak-47.net, it makes you look even worse. You equate my mentioning you on a thread that is talking about people banned from a site and whether this makes the site a bad place to you mentioning my name OUT OF THE BLUE and totally apropos of NOTHING in your thread that has NOTHING to do with me. Gee, moron, NEWS FLASH...you were banned from ak-47.net, and well Golllly, wouldn't you know that one of the points of contention in the thread in question was that they had BANNED a bunch of people. You fit perfectly in that context, as I was pointing out that some of the people that had been banned deserved it...as you most certainly did. YOU on the other hand start a thread that using an article of someone more intelligent than yourself that has NOTHING to do with me and before you say a word on your TOPIC, you once again repeat the lie you've repeated over and over in an unprovoked flame of your favorite subject. Tell you what, you waste of flesh, you stop lying about me and I'll stop telling the truth about you.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 7:28:42 PM EDT
And you know what? On that note, I am done with this thread. I've wasted enough time on you for now...and as the saying goes, you can't win a pissing contest with a prick.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 8:25:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2002 8:41:51 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: [b]It's not my reading comprehension Belloc, it's your horrible writing skills.[/b] This is what Rik could not comprehend: [i]"What, oh, you mean like the "personal shot" you took at me on the AK thread here a couple of days ago"[/i] So how many "AK" threads were posted "here" a "couple of days ago" in which Rik took a shot at me? Answer, 1. Yet, this befuddles him. What a suprise. [b]Since you finally explained you meant the thread on AR15.COM ABOUT ak-47.net[/b] What Rik is saying here is "I'm sorry Belloc, I know you had to use small words, and repeat them ad nauseam, for me to comprehend that, yes, I did take a shot at you first on this site in the AK thread several days ago. That is 100% true." [b]You equate my mentioning you on a thread that is talking about people banned from a site and whether this makes the site a bad place to you mentioning my name OUT OF THE BLUE and totally apropos of NOTHING in your thread that has NOTHING to do with me.[/b] What Rik is saying here is "I'm sorry Belloc, I know you had to use small words, and repeat them ad nauseam, for me to comprehend that, yes, I did take a shot at you first on this site in the AK thread several days ago. That is 100% true." Or, to use even smaller words so as to help Rik understand them, what he is attempting to say in his juvenile drivel is "that's different Belloc. Yeah, sure, I took a shot at you first, but, well, that's just different. Why do you have to be so mean spirited all the time. Why don't you like gays. I like them. Their swell. I even find some, well, delicious. Tee-he-he" You really are a fag Rik. [b]YOU on the other hand start a thread that using an article of someone more intelligent than yourself that has NOTHING to do with me and before you say a word on your TOPIC, you once again repeat the lie you've repeated over and over in an unprovoked flame of your favorite subject.[/b] Whatever wingnut. You did however ADMIT that you start "unprovoked flames" over on the AK forum because: 1. You "feel like it" (psycho) 2. You think it's "delicious" (fag) 3. I can't respond. (coward)
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 8:43:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Yawn. Same old Belloc, same old boring bullshit.
View Quote
Just from an outside perspective, it seems kind of foolish to make this statement and then go about arguing with him. If it's the same old boring bullshit, why are you wasting your time? One has to surmise that you don't think what he is saying is bullshit. Your responding to stuff you state is bullshit, and actually arguing about it, only makes what he has to say important; responding also casts your credibility into doubt (I think it's bullshit, but I'm going to argue it anyway).
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 8:47:35 PM EDT
And just as a reminder, in case anyone forgot, NO ONE, not ONE member or moderator, friend or foe, and not even Rik himself, EVER attempted to refute the lies of his I posted on the AK forum site. And when Rik is asked WHY no one (not even Rik himself) ever even TRY to defend him against the charge of being a liar even though if they did it would have resulted in my self imposed permanent exile (which I promised I would do if they showed where Rik HAD NOT lied)? What is Riks response to why was it that people kept posting on the threads over and over but STILL never said that the quotes of his I posted do not prove that he lied? Well, Rik, after 6 MONTHS, can only say that they did't think it worth it. This is the best explanation Rik can come up with. Why? Because he's a liar and not even his forum and real life friends ever said "Belloc, those quotes you posted of his are not lies". Not one person, not one.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 8:52:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc: And just as a reminder, in case anyone forgot, NO ONE, not ONE member or moderator, friend or foe, and not even Rik himself, EVER attempted to refute the lies of his I posted on the AK forum site. And when Rik is asked WHY no one (not even Rik himself) ever even TRY to defend him against the charge of being a liar even though if they did it would have resulted in my self imposed permanent exile (which I promised I would do if they showed where Rik HAD NOT lied)? What is Riks response to why was it that people kept posting on the threads over and over but STILL never said that the quotes of his I posted do not prove that he lied? Well, Rik, after 6 MONTHS, can only say that they did't think it worth it. This is the best explanation Rik can come up with. Why? Because he's a liar and not even his forum and real life friends ever said "Belloc, those quotes you posted of his are not lies". Not one person, not one.
View Quote
I think that you get a little too worked up yourself. If it happened 6 months ago, why do you care?
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 9:38:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2002 9:45:24 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: If it happened 6 months ago, why do you care?
View Quote
The mention of "6 months" was to demonstrate that "for over 6 months now" no one, not even Rik himself, EVER refuted that Rik was a liar. I only care because, as he finally admitted above, Rik went on the attack first again so I offered a counter jab. That is to say that whenever he needs the amusement in his unemployed pathetic life to feel the "delicious irony" of taking shots at me I am going to point out that not one of his friends EVER read my posts on the AK forum and said "Belloc, those quotes of Rik's that you posted are not lies." If next month Rik again goes into attack mode (you can set your clock by it) then I will post that for the last [b]7[/b] months, no one, not even Rik himself was able to refute the fact that he lied. Notice however that when he asked ONE TIME for me to refute something, I did so in my very next post. 7 months later, after countless posts and attacks by Rik, he still is unable to refute his lies. How telling.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 10:04:21 PM EDT
Good grief guys. Cut it out. We're brothers man! PEACE! [8P] Make taxes, not war! [whacko] Hehehehe, anyway, can't anyone appreciate my comment about using Mullah Omar on homosexuals in the priesthood? themao [chainsawkill]
Top Top