ruining threads part II

[size=-3]"And the significance will affect the future of our planet. So Max is only being helpful to all of mankind. Generations yet unborn will owe Max a debt of gratitude for his diligence. On behalf of all; living, dead, and yet to be born, I (as should we all) thank Max for making the world a better place. For his altruistic efforts which have greatly cut into his valuable personal time. For being at the forefront of preemptive worldwide destruction (or worse) by devoting his time, effort and keen sense of observation to the pursuit of a grander goal. To save the world from any inconsistencies ever posted by RS7. To dispute any invalid opinions of Aphie, or ElCubano, or Optional777, or Stu, or so many others of the other very ominous potential threats to civilization. Hail Max!!!! God bless Max. He has delivered us from evil. Just in time for Christmas. And with a holiday spirit to boot! Max will surely be on Santa's list of who was "good" and who was "nice". He is the champion of the underdog. The upholder of good and a credit to humanity.

I hope I have made myself clear. If I have left out any accolades, it is purely because I have not the clarity of expression and comprehensive thought ability of our exalted Max401. But I tried."[/size]

You shoot yourself in the foot with this kind of nonsense; over and over and over. Sheesh.............!

“B: For the millionth time....a compilation is just that.”

Hey, you’re getting warm. The point is that all your bleating of innocence makes your deceit conspicuous by the non-stop, broken-phonograph-record repetition. You’re obsessed with trying to prove your posting “righteousness,” the repeated excuses of the same do not help you. Factually, your admission makes you a liar. Your compilation pretext came after. How about addressing that? Admit you are a liar.

Look up the word. I did indeed say I was NOT in COMBAT in VIETNAM.

Really?

10-31-02 "readily admitted to him that the viet nam[sic] stuff was actually a compilation of my own experiences and those of others."

12-07-02 - "the Vietnam experiences were really a compilation of both my own, and my brother in laws."

BTW, in your last compilation of crap post, you failed to address the "others"/"in-law" aspect.

"C: It is obvious that you are not obsessed with me. Clearly your dated quotes in which you refer to chamois show that your interest in me and what I have done, said I have done, (including travel, jobs, family, whatever) are of no more than a very small passing interest on your behalf."

Hardly, it shows the stupidity of your repeated cries; which are really your self-indictment as well as a perfect of example of your name dropping arrogance, among other things.

"Certainly there can be no obsession, because these issues are of great importance to all."

I keep telling you, the only person who cares is you and inordinately so. Nobody gives a crap about you. But you continually cry for abuse... I pull your strings. If I were you (and was telling the truth), I would have made one statement and then ignored whoever said otherwise. Things as they are, why don’t you just shut up and let it go?

 

Hey Max,

Seems to me you are seriously losing your case for prosecution here. If the guy said that the vietnam stuff was a compilation of his and other's experience, then how do you continue to challenge the whole thing? I went and actually read what he said, and it seems that, after he said that the experiences were a compilation, there were no inconsistencies. I am lost in your thinking here.

Also, I must admit it was a tedious chore to track down this one single thing. How in the world can you say that you are not obsessed after doing what you have so obviously spent so much time on?

There can may be some doubt as to some of the claims made by rs7. But doubt is just doubt. There is no way to know for sure if he is completely being truthful or not. Although I see nothing he said to be of any possible harm to anyone. His vietnam stuff was very anti-war. So if he made up a compilation, like he explains, to make his point, I see no harm done. Whether you agree or disagree with his anti-war opinion is not relevant. Seems like you disagree, but you don't really say. You only addressed your doubt about RS7, and did not seem to express an opinion one way or the other on the subjece. Which seems to go with what RS7 claims about you Max. That you don't really express yourself or in way not directly related to discrediting RS7 or others. But this is not really important. Lot's of people want to stay neutral about politics and religion, and issues that, when argued, never change anyones minds anyway. So maybe it is smart of you not to participate in these discussions. On the other hand, maybe it serves only to establish that you don't care about anything but RS7. Tough to tell.

I do remember that you challenged him on other issues, and no matter what degree of evidence he gave you that he was, in fact, being truthful, you ignored the proof and just provoked. Very obviously he did prove he was where he was on several occasions with exactly the proof you asked for. But it didn't accomplish anything.

I can't help but assess the situation to be what is so evidently a case of you truly being relentless and obsessive about this guy. It seems that both of you are responding to each other, but at least, mostly, it is you that is antagonistic. I don't understand why. I understand RS7 trying to defend himself. I don't understand why he continues. But mostly I don't understand why you need to stay on the attack.

As far as being obsessive. Well, anyone that can spend so much time reading the posts and looking for clues like you have, has a serious problem. What is so important about this guy to you? What has he done to offend you? Or is it the opposite? Has he given you a reason for living like he said? You are a sad case Max, there is no rational reason for your behavior. You really do need help (IMHO).

MarcD

 

I guess MarcD can be Shemp..........

"Pretty Normal" ...30% of the votes....I smell a rat....

 

I could go for being Shemp. It would be an honor!

Yeah, 30%? If this isn't a fix, I wouldn't know what was. No way could 30% of the readers think this guy is normal.

Max must have recruited some Taliban friends of his. Or KKK. That's the thing with Max. We don't know where he stands on any issue except for RS7.

Good luck, and do that finger snapping thing that used to crack me up when I was a kid. I am assuming you are curly Or was it Moe? Either way, it was funny to me when I was 10.

Adios ElCubano,
MarcD

PS:

While I am almost young enough to be the son of RS7 (at least theoretically), I am old enough to know that during the era RS7 was referring to, Vietnam was indeed usually expressed as a two word location. Maybe like "The Bronx"....but seriously folks, it really was printed as two words.
Maybe it still is:http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/Home.htm

 

“If the guy said that the vietnam stuff was a compilation of his and other's experience, then how do you continue to challenge the whole thing?”

“I went and actually read what he said, and it seems that, after he said that the experiences were a compilation, there were no inconsistencies.”

1. It’s a compilation of “brother-in-law,” then “others.”

2. Next, his “compilation” cop out was late in coming. We still don’t know what part is his and what part is from “brother-in-law”/”others.”

3. He claims he wasn’t in Vietnam. Then he calls it his “Vietnam experience” and “viet nam stuff.”

4. At anytime in your life, have you ever heard of the U.S. State Department running a “criminal endeavor?” He says he was on a “mapmaking” expedition to determine drug routes. This doesn’t make any sense; in 1971, about the time RS7 would have had to been there, Nixon had already reduced the troop levels to just 29% of the 1968 peak.

5. RS7 proclaimed his “combat experience,” a ludicrous story at best, a “secret mission,” conveniently unverifiable; he let it stand as his own. Only when challenged did he then mention that it was a “compilation.” Why? Because he screwed up when he wrote his fantasy combat experiences. Farmers and teenagers with rifles, and someone had their leg blown off? Farmers possessed “Hanoi Hilton” styled detention units?

6. In one of his later versions, he intimates he was “shot” prior to capture, “...and even though I was shot, I never knew by whom. I have a scar, but don't know who pulled the trigger. I was captured and held prisoner along with 4 others.”

Yet, in an earlier version, he tells this story: “I was captured. I was imprisoned, and I was shot escaping.”

7. He claims that he was on a mission in the Shan state, to make maps to determine the drug supply routes used by the ARVN. This area of Burma/Myanmar is where the opium in question was produced. This would be like mapping the greater Detroit area to find the routes car carriers use to transport automobiles to Jacksonville, FL, which is the same straight line distance as the Shan area to what was then Saigon.

“Also, I must admit it was a tedious chore to track down this one single thing. How in the world can you say that you are not obsessed after doing what you have so obviously spent so much time on?”

Wow, you call 10 minutes on the ET search engine tedious?

”So if he made up a compilation, like he explains, to make his point, I see no harm done.”

It's a dishonorable lie about a subject matter that is important and should not be desecrated by pretenders.

”I do remember that you challenged him on other issues, and no matter what degree of evidence he gave you that he was, in fact, being truthful, you ignored the proof and just provoked.”

Excuse me, but in this statement: “no matter what degree of evidence he gave you that he was, in fact, being truthful,” where does his “evidence” cause it to be a “fact” that “he was being truthful?”

”Very obviously he did prove he was where he was on several occasions with exactly the proof you asked for.”

Again, he produced a visa, a child’s photograph and a ski pass. That is not proof of anything regarding the questions asked of him.

”I can't help but assess the situation to be what is so evidently a case of you truly being relentless and obsessive about this guy.”

Your next statement ”It seems that both of you are responding to each other,” contradicts the one above and explains my posting frequency on RS7.

”but at least, mostly, it is you that is antagonistic. I don't understand why.”

It’s obvious isn’t it? I’m the one pointing the finger, of course it appears more “antagonistic” then someone who is saying “You’re stalking me, you bad person.” But as you point out, this is not stalking, this is simply responding. And again, he has the key to stop any rebuttal.

”I understand RS7 trying to defend himself. I don't understand why he continues.”

I’m baffled as well, but again, if I was he, and truthful about all these stories, I would simply make a rebuttal and ignore any claim otherwise. Of course, I have a feeling that there is some BS involved and hence his repeated efforts to be “righteous” in the eyes of his all important peer group.

”But mostly I don't understand why you need to stay on the attack.”

I don’t “need” to do anything, and neither does RS7. However, the “attack” by him about me on irrelevant topics, i.e. alleging insanity, drug use, obsession, mental problems, etc., etc., is relentless. Yet, if you notice, it has no effect. I think it’s amusing as wella s telling, to see him use all these methods of fallacious argument, such as arguments by ad hominem, emotive language, appeal to pity and his most inefficacious, argument by personal charm; all of these "tools" are indicative of guilt, in my opinion. The more he posts, the worse he makes his case.

”As far as being obsessive. Well, anyone that can spend so much time reading the posts and looking for clues like you have, has a serious problem.”

You’re no stranger either to fallacious argument. Circular: It does not take much time to see what someone has posted in the past. Ad hominem: Even if your time premise were true, is it a “serious problem” that I have? I think not and who are you to determine what the problems of others are, enough so that you can label a person as “bad?” But no matter, if it were true that I am "bad," it doesn't contribute a thing to making a case for RS7's rebuttals being any more factual or effective.

“What is so important about this guy to you? What has he done to offend you?”

I simply challenged RS7 on his veracity. It would seem that he is not finished his defense of the same. You cannot be offended by an anonymous message board poster, at least I'm not.

”Or is it the opposite? Has he given you a reason for living like he said? You are a sad case Max, there is no rational reason for your behavior. You really do need help (IMHO).”

Thank you for your thoughts, but that is simply another personal attack, i.e. ad hominem, further, not based on facts or logic. Again, your loyalty to RS7 is admirable, however I personally find it misguided.

 

Then why wouldn't it be 60%?

 

Seems to me like it was. But, as can be seen by your post that goes on and on about so many issues, I guess the "truth" wouldn't matter under any circumstances.

I can't help but find the posts with his photos of a child and visa and ski pass pretty convincing. It would take a total refusal of evidence to deny this. So forgetting the combat stories, which may or may not be true (no proof one way or the other, but he is exactly the right age to have been drafted), I have to conclude for one, that you have indeed made a crusade out of trying to discredit this guy.

As for the amount of time to go over all his old posts; well if you can do it quickly, you must have a lot of practice. I found it long and tedious.

Whatever the ultimate truth is, it is pretty apparent that RS7 HAS contributed some good trading advice based on experience. You have not, that I have found, contributed anything but antogonism.
And I guess this is the reason people seem supportive of him and not supportive of you. You really have no purpose but to be as unpleasant as possible.

Shemp

 

Seems to me like it was. But, as can be seen by your post that goes on and on about so many issues, I guess the "truth" wouldn't matter under any circumstances.

Excuse me, but a reply to all the issues you presented could not be accomplished in one paragraph

I can't help but find the posts with his photos of a child and visa and ski pass pretty convincing.

Convincing of what? A child was photographed in Monaco and Menton. That is all that photograph can convince anyone of. What does it convince you of?

The visa is a scan or photograph of a visa. What does that convince you of?

The ski pass is not indicative of any of the dozens of slopes available with that pass having been visited. It doesn't convince that the holder skied Vallee Blanche.

It would take a total refusal of evidence to deny this.

See the above comments.

So forgetting the combat stories, which may or may not be true (no proof one way or the other, but he is exactly the right age to have been drafted)...

1. The "combat" stories are not true by RS7's own admission.

2. 23 or 24 is "exactly the right age to have been drafted?"

I have to conclude for one, that you have indeed made a crusade out of trying to discredit this guy.

1. It's not possible for me to discredit him, only he can accomplish that.

2. There is no "crusade;" you comment, he comments, I answer.

As for the amount of time to go over all his old posts; well if you can do it quickly, you must have a lot of practice. I found it long and tedious.

Give me a for instance.

Whatever the ultimate truth is, it is pretty apparent that RS7 HAS contributed some good trading advice based on experience.

My opinion is it's a regurgitation of well known generalities. Does it have value? Yes, but I submit, not to the degree of glorification you or RS7 promote.

You have not, that I have found, contributed anything but antagonism. And I guess this is the reason people seem supportive of him and not supportive of you. You really have no purpose but to be as unpleasant as possible.

These are obviously your highly biased perceptions. You play the roll of RS7's advocate, do you not? At least most of your posts seem to indicate that your pretty much an RS7 cheer leader. Is that not so?

 

Now, marc, is this your example of being antagonistic?

 

Maybe.

Max, using your advice, I used the search function. You referred to RS7 in over 170 posts. He referred to you (I would say in response in 100% of them) 80 times.

Is this NOT obsessive of you?

MarcD