On 6/7/2010 4:23 PM, bob klahn wrote to ROSS CASSELL:

Earl is doing his best to sabatoge this echo.

There is the first Klahn-ism. He considers it "sabotage" to USE the echo
for the very reason he listed the echo in the first place! He likes that
word, but he doesn't understand it.

Banned topics in other echos are not legitimate here just
because they are banned there.

And there is another one. He violates his own first rule:

"it should be clearly understood that
personal attacks (flames), are not to originate in this echo.
They can be replied to in this echo if they are in response to
one originating in an echo where the poster is not allowed to
respond."

The topic was not banned. Responses to my post were banned for one week. Thus, your post in "all politics" WAS in response to a message originating
in an echo where you ("the poster") were not allowed to respond. Klahn
doesn't understand his own rules.

Of course, that was obvious all along, as shown by the number of times he
has INITIATED personal attacks in his echo.

But it was pretty funny to see him decide that it is a personal attack to simply QUOTE someone's words! And when Sauer says he saw a plane crash,
Klahn considers it a personal attack to simply ask the name of the base!
Bob never fails to amuse with his bumbling antics.



--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

Hello Earl!

07 Jun 10 19:43, you wrote to me:

Earl is doing his best to sabatoge this echo.

There is the first Klahn-ism. He considers it "sabotage" to USE the
echo for the very reason he listed the echo in the first place! He
likes that word, but he doesn't understand it.

Banned topics in other echos are not legitimate here just
because they are banned there.

And there is another one. He violates his own first rule:

"it should be clearly understood that
personal attacks (flames), are not to originate in this echo.
They can be replied to in this echo if they are in response to
one originating in an echo where the poster is not allowed to
respond."

The topic was not banned. Responses to my post were banned for one
week. Thus, your post in "all politics" WAS in response to a message originating in an echo where you ("the poster") were not allowed to respond. Klahn doesn't understand his own rules.

Well you could ban me from this echo until the 13th, post a message about the F15 crash and well, I will have no recourse but to respond to you in Klahntopia.

==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Other Places: http://links.cassell.us
... Bigot: Anyone who's winning an argument with a Democrat.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20060121
* Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)

On 06-07-10, ROSS CASSELL said to EARL CROASMUN:

Earl is doing his best to sabatoge this echo.

There is the first Klahn-ism. He considers it "sabotage" to USE the
echo for the very reason he listed the echo in the first place! He
likes that word, but he doesn't understand it.

Banned topics in other echos are not legitimate here just
because they are banned there.

And there is another one. He violates his own first rule:

"it should be clearly understood that
personal attacks (flames), are not to originate in this echo.
They can be replied to in this echo if they are in response to
one originating in an echo where the poster is not allowed to
respond."

The topic was not banned. Responses to my post were banned for one
week. Thus, your post in "all politics" WAS in response to a message originating in an echo where you ("the poster") were not allowed to respond. Klahn doesn't understand his own rules.

Well you could ban me from this echo until the 13th, post a message about RC>the F15 crash and well, I will have no recourse but to respond to you in RC>Klahntopia.

Under Klahn's own rule, you need to ban any mention of Sauer's lies about having worked on Warthog's for about ten days or so.


If its banned in here, that means it can be discussed in *Klahn's* echo, which he has already stated is the case.


---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Everyone knows that Bob lies when he is pressed and has no truthful way
out. You won't admit it, of course, but by now even you realize it.

Here is just the latest example that I have noticed, not the biggest or
the smallest or the worst, just one example:

(speaking of me) "His inability to conduct himself decently is why he
gets himself banned in any echo where decent conduct is required."

It is a flat-out lie, and everyone who follows the political discussion
echoes knows it. Who in the world is he trying to lie TO?

There is NO echo in which I am banned for any conduct in that echo.
Zero. None. The ONLY echo in which I am "banned" is Klahn's "debate"
echo, and that was just done by him in REVENGE for his inability to
follow what HE defined as decent conduct. He insisted on breaking the anti-hypocrisy rule, and then he refused to accept the consequences of
breaking it. In case you forget his childish attempt to sabotage the
rule via threat, his words were: "Ban me and I'll ban you from my echo."

I followed Peter's rules in his/Bob's echo, even when Bob himself broke
them. He did not follow the rules in mine, and he banned me from his
when I didn't back down from his silly extortion attempt. And now he
tells a pathetic lie that even you realize is a lie. You won't admit it
out loud, because he is reading this echo, but you fully realize it.

If you have any influence on him, get him to seek help.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
* Origin: (1:226/600)