Legal Update : Biggers v. Abraham.

On Dec 22, 9:34*pm, Three Buddha and His Inflatable Dream of Bacon
wrote:
On Dec 22, 2:28*pm, twobuddha wrote: On Dec 21, 11:20*pm, Three Buddha and His Inflatable Dream of Bacon

wrote:
On Dec 21, 7:01*pm, twobuddha wrote:

When decent people figure YOU out, they are disgusted. *Repelled.
Aghast at what a pathetic, laughable, vile asshole you are.

I think you are now having delusions of my grandeur, because
honestly most people could give a **** about some guy who
gives you grief on the internets.

You've got about as much grandeur as the last good **** I took.

I'll take that as a compliment. *I know how hard it can be to
take a good, satisfying ****.

The turd had more of a conscience, more decency, more manliness than
you. Mr. Hankey Butter.



Most people find me funny. That's why they keep giving me so
much free ****.

Most decent people think you are a sociopath, and find you repulsive.
Certainly a whole bunch of people who used to post here, and are still
my friends, think you are a despicable asshole, a dickless coward, and
a sociopathic wimp.

Name names so that I can hunt them down and kill them.

You've threatened to do that to me, dickless. Go for it.
Oooops, forgot. That would take balls.



Can you work on having a conscience? *

Can you work on citing evidence of a lock of a conscience?

This post. *Plenty more available, freak. *Now go **** yourself..

So a conscionable post would be what?

You would not understand, freak.

So you can't explain it. Which means you have no
idea what it means.

I could explain it to someone who has the capacity of understanding,
and do so frequently. You do not. Like trying to explain a sunset to
a blind person. You simply do not have the capacity. Your
personality is defective. Character disordered. You lack the ability
to undersand any kind of empathy, spiritual life, personal growth.
Sad. You are a human cripple, doomed to a lifetime of sociopathy and
dicklessness.
Now go **** yourself, freak. Or try to make good on your threats.
Oooops, forgot, you do not have the capacity. No balls.

On 29/12/2008 04:31, twobuddha wrote:
On Dec 23, 10:27 am, Mark Clements
wrote:
On 22/12/2008 22:29, twobuddha wrote: I'll assume that after a certain period of time (and presumably
according to the offence) your criminal record is expunged, so now you
have no criminal record - OK.
Another pathetic lie. What part of NEVER CHARGED. NEVER CONVICTED.
Don't you understand, you manipulative piece of ****?
Oh, I understand your assertion perfectly well, just as I'd understand
your assertion if you said that you had three arms. In that case
however, as in this, I wouldn't believe it.

I could give a **** whether you believe it or not, freak. Fact.
Reality. You're a pathological liar and you just got busted lying.
How pathetic.
I'm unclear as to what you think my lie is:

a. that I assume your criminal record has been expunged after X years
b. that I don't believe that you were never convicted
c. something else that escapes me

In cases a. and b., you are claiming that I am lying about what I think.
It's unlikely that you can prove what I really think.

You claim that I'm a "pathological liar" on the basis of a handful of
postings here. Wild extrapolation does not help your cause.


Lets get this straight: are you claiming that your DUI convictions are
not convictions per se and are something like "DUI slap-on-the-wrist" or
"DUI you're-a-naughty-boy-now-don't-do-it-again"? Enquiring minds need
to know.

Not criminal, dumb****. Last one was over twenty five years ago.
Enquiring minds want to know why you are so desperate you bring up
ancient history in order to cover up getting busted lying, you
snip usual abuse
OK - so just to clarify, which of the following are you claiming

a. you were caught DUI, but it isn't (or wasn't in 198whatever) a
criminal offence
b. you were caught DUI, but not convicted despite it being a criminal
offence
c. you were never caught DUI
d. something else that escapes me

As for bringing up ancient history, you made a claim

"Never arrested, never charged, never
convicted of any crime."

and I'd just like some clarification, because this claim seems to
contradict your record.


I still have a lingering question - were
you not arrested or charged for the DUI(s)? I have no idea how the
system works in the US, but in the UK even a simple speeding offence is
classed as a conviction, so I'm having a little trouble with your "never
arrested, never charged, never convicted of any crime" assertion.
snip usual ad hominem stuff in which answering the question is avoided

Translation: Asshole gets busted lying, snips information that proves
he got busted lying.
Er - no. There was no proof, just a string of abuse and accusations. As
usual, these do nothing for your cause.

On Dec 29 2008, 10:24*am, Mark Clements
wrote:
On 29/12/2008 04:31, twobuddha wrote: On Dec 23, 10:27 am, Mark Clements
*wrote:
On 22/12/2008 22:29, twobuddha wrote: *I'll assume that after a certain period of time (and presumably
according to the offence) your criminal record is expunged, so now you
have no criminal record - OK.
Another pathetic lie. *What part of NEVER CHARGED. *NEVER CONVICTED.
Don't you understand, you manipulative piece of ****?
Oh, I understand your assertion perfectly well, just as I'd understand
your assertion if you said that you had three arms. In that case
however, as in this, I wouldn't believe it.

I could give a **** whether you believe it or not, freak. *Fact.
Reality. *You're a pathological liar and you just got busted lying.
How pathetic.

I'm unclear as to what you think my lie is:

How pathetic.

a. that I assume your criminal record has been expunged after X years

A lie. Nothing expunged.

b. that I don't believe that you were never convicted

Who cares what a dickless freak and pathological liar believes? The
fact remains that I have not, and you are lying if you say I have been
convicted of a crime.
Busted lying again.

c. something else that escapes me

Yeah, like your lies, freak.

In cases a. and b., you are claiming that I am lying about what I think.
It's unlikely that you can prove what I really think.

Lying. Period. How pathetic. The rationalizations of freak.

You claim that I'm a "pathological liar" on the basis of a handful of
postings here. Wild extrapolation does not help your cause.

Actually, your excuses for lying convict you. Pathological liar.
Such excuses are only used by pathological liars.
Amazing that you can state an outright lie, because it is your
"belief", yet have the gall to use the term "wild extrapolation".
Pathological lying.



Lets get this straight: are you claiming that your DUI convictions are
not convictions per se and are something like "DUI slap-on-the-wrist" or
"DUI you're-a-naughty-boy-now-don't-do-it-again"? Enquiring minds need
to know.

Not criminal, dumb****. *Last one was over twenty five years ago.
Enquiring minds want to know why you are so desperate you bring up
ancient history in order to cover up getting busted lying, you

snip usual abuse

Translation: snip me cathing this dickless freak lying.

OK - so just to clarify, which of the following are you claiming

a. you were caught DUI, but it isn't (or wasn't in 198whatever) a
criminal offence
b. you were caught DUI, but not convicted despite it being a criminal
offence
c. you were never caught DUI
d. something else that escapes me

Yeah. Like me getting your identity and being able to run YOU for a
record.
You gall is amazing.
And more lies.

As for bringing up ancient history, you made a claim

"Never arrested, never charged, never
convicted of any crime."

True. Go **** yourself, you lying wack job.

and I'd just like some clarification, because this claim seems to
contradict your record.

Another outright lie. Clarify your identity, dickless.

* *I still have a lingering question - were
you not arrested or charged for the DUI(s)? I have no idea how the
system works in the US, but in the UK even a simple speeding offence is
classed as a conviction, so I'm having a little trouble with your "never
arrested, never charged, never convicted of any crime" assertion.
snip usual ad hominem stuff in which answering the question is avoided

Translation: *Asshole gets busted lying, snips information that proves
he got busted lying.

Er - no. There was no proof, just a string of abuse and accusations. As
usual, these do nothing for your cause.

Translation: Asshole gets busted lying, snips information that proes
he got busted lying, then lies and lies some more.
Go **** yourself, freak.

On 01/01/2009 19:11, twobuddha wrote:
snip a *lot*
You're really not very good at this, are you?
Since you aren't capable of answering a few simple questions and instead
prefer to resort to abuse, blatant departures from logic and tortuous
circular reasoning (this appears to be a common pattern where you're
concerned), I'm going to stop attempting to get any sense out of you
right here. To prolong the thread would be nothing more than an exercise
in futility.


Happy New Year Scott - don't go changing!

On Jan 1, 1:52*pm, Mark Clements
wrote:
On 01/01/2009 19:11, twobuddha wrote:
snip a *lot*
You're really not very good at this, are you?

Actually, I am great with telling the truth. You really aren't very
good at lying.
Strange game you play, freak.

Since you aren't capable of answering a few simple questions and instead
prefer to resort to abuse, blatant departures from logic and tortuous
circular reasoning (this appears to be a common pattern where you're
concerned), I'm going to stop attempting to get any sense out of you
right here. To prolong the thread would be nothing more than an exercise
in futility.

Happy New Year Scott - don't go changing!

Translation: you lied your ass off, got caught lying, kept lying,
then ran your ass off.
Go **** yourself, freak.