Krygowski dobs in Fogel's fear of "flamboyant" newbie

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
After Frank Krygowski's most recent revelations we know what Carl
Fogel and Krygowski did and why and how. They called Andre Jute a liar
without waiting for him to put the facts on the table because the
speed story was just a pretext in a pre-planned character
assassination. They did it deliberately and with malicious forethought
because of "clues ... elsewhere in his postings" (says Krygowski)
rather than any evidence in the speed event (which Jute had anyway not
yet presented) -- and because Carl Fogel didn't want someone
"flamboyant" (says Fogel) on his patch.

wrote:

On Jan 27, 9:52 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

That has nothing to do with it. I read Mr. Jute's post before Mr.
Fogel's reply, and did not see anything that pointed to it being an
obvious falsehood.

Well, that's a judgment call. There were several people who judged
they saw several clues both in his tale, and elsewhere in his
postings.

Krygowski is telling us that this little Krygo-Fogel gang had decided
even before the speed test incident to drive me out by character
assassination. Ask yourself, how the **** can what I say "elsewhere"
be proof to Krygowski and Fogel that what I say about a speed test is
untrue? (And we shall see that Fogel called me a liar *before* I
stated the facts on the speed test.) In fact, Fogel has already told
us clearly that the speed test was just a suitable pretext because he
had previously decided I wouldn't do his gang any good:

*****
I thought he was a blow-hard from the get-go, but I had no idea that
he was so flamboyant.
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...38b341f?hl=en#
*****

I made a devastating analysis of Krygowski's "judgement" and his
"several clues" to highlight how ludicrous they are; there's nothing
credible in Krygowski's inflated list of the difficulties of following
a truck downhill on a bicycle, not a single worthwhile point.
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...8c2fbdd9c9f5a0
Krygowski has not replied; he merely invented some even more ludicrous
excuses like earthquakes and tried to put them in my mouth. Dismissed
with contempt.

Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Fogel posted an insinuation, while
avoiding a direct accusation, which is his style.

Let's calm down and examine the issue of insinuations. First, you
know and I know that there are people who have posted lies on Usenet,
right?

How can this be justification for calling a specific person, me, a
liar?

If a person strongly suspects a person's account isn't correct or
factual, how should it be handled?

By offering proof. Not by deciding in advance that some person is an
undesirable and then using character assassination falsely to accuse
him on spurious "judgement" that cannot be substantiated by any facts.
You, Frank Krygowski, and your bumbuddy Carl Fogel, are character
assassins, and therefore immoral scum.

Should we immediately yell "Liar!!"? I agree, we should not.

They why did that premature ejaculator Carl Fogel not even wait for me
to put the facts on the table before he shot his wad over his leg by
repeatedly calling me a liar? You and he have already told us: you
were looking for an opportunity to assassinate my character, Fogel
thought he saw it, and he got so excited at the prospect of hurting
someone, he went off at half-cock.

Should we believe absolutely everything that's posted? Not a good
strategy.

This isn't about everything that is posted, or even everything I have
posted. This is about you, Frank Krygowski and Carl Fogel calling me a
liar on specifics which you failed to prove were not true, in fact in
advance of me stating the specifics. In other words, you two scumballs
lied in your attempt to discredit me. Then you and Fogel specifically
refused to apologise, confirming your guilt. Innocent men would have
said, "Gee, sorry for the misunderstanding. We didn't mean to give the
impression of calling you a liar." But Fogel, after being repeatedly
offered the opportunity to retract and apologize, and egged on by you
to refuse, specifically said "I won't."

Should we always remain silent, and hope someone else does the heavy
lifting? Well, one could, but it's not contributing much to the
online community.

Where does an immoral slimeball like you, Krygowski, get the cheek to
talk about "contributing to the online community"? What do you plan to
contribute? More online character assassinations?

How about stating "I'd love to believe that, but it seems unlikely,"
or words to that effect, and perhaps giving an explanation of the
reasons for doubt?

How about asking for the facts and waiting until they're in before you
start flinging accusations of lying?

How about not deciding in advance on "clues ... elsewhere in his
postings" (the words of Frank Krygowski) that you will assassinate
someone's character at the first suitable opportunity? Your method and
your guilt are both proven by Carl Fogel's premature ejaculation.

That seems reasonable. It doesn't say "liar," because it allows for
other explanations, such as remembering wrongly, technical recording
errors, creative fiction, etc. It's a polite way of expressing doubt
- something we must do from time to time, if we're not to be paralyzed
by political correctness.

Yawn. We already know what you and Fogel did and why and how,
Krygowski. You called me a liar without waiting for me to put the
facts on the table. You did it deliberately and with malicious
forethought because of "clues ... elsewhere in his postings" -- and
because that smarmy backstabber "Dear Carl" didn't want someone
"flamboyant" on his patch:
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...38b341f?hl=en#

And AFAICT, it's what Carl did.

Carl Fogel saw his opportunity through such a passion that he didn't
even realize I hadn't yet made the statement he intended to call a
lie, and shot his wad into empty space. Specifically, in the eighteen
hours before I put the facts on the table, Fogel twice volunteered the
accusation that I was a liar, then sneered at someone who told him I
should be given time to respond, then carried on a sneering jeering
correspondence with his street corner gang in which the presumtion was
that I had lied. Later, to cover up for the fact that I had in fact as
yet said nothing, Fogel developed the fiction that anything I said in
future would also be a lie, which ties in nicely with "clues ...
elsewhere in his postings". Here's the timeline of Carl Fogel's crime
passionelle (LOL):
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...506d685c4116b3
and here is Fogel's claim that whatever I say in future will be a lie:
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...2f449b8146a486

What would you do?

Not plot character assassinations in such an underhand way?

(And as an aside - do you _really_ prefer Jute's style to Carl's
style??)

If anyone still believes that Fogel called me a liar for any reason to
do with my little biking thrill behind the truck, that sentence should
disillusion him right smartly. This whole affair isn't about whether I
told the truth, it is about Carl Fogel's primacy at the top of a
dungheap. Fogel feared that the "flamboyant" Andre Jute would
overshadow him and decided to drive me out by character assassination.
(What a self-lacerating idiot; all Fogel had to do was nothing and I
would have stroked him to do my historical research for me if I ever
decide to write about bikes; and I would have raised the profile of
Fogel's buttboy Krygowski at the same time.)

- Frank Krygowski

And Fogel's buttboy Frank Krygowski just gave away the entire plot.

As I said before, Frankieboy, you really are too clumsy to indulge in
polemics with me. That was a warning, see. Now it is too late. The cat
is out of the bag.

But thanks, Frankie. Remind me to share no secrets with your slack
mouth and slacker brain.

Andre "The Interlocutor" Jute
An interrogation is a seduction, not a dental extraction.

Funny how the slimeballs Carl Fogel and Frank Krygowski suddenly went
silent after I exposed their petty motive for their lies and their
false accusations, and for the trail of slime Krygowski and lesser
lights in the Krygo-Fogel Scum dragged across RBT in their attempts to
justify Fogel's false accusations, and Fogel's lies, and Fogel's
immoral refusal to confess, apologise and atone for his crimes against
decency, and ditto for Fogel's buttboy, Krygowski.

What a pair of half-assed plotters.

Andre Jute
Like taking candy from a baby


On Jan 28, 11:29*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
After Frank Krygowski's most recent revelations we *know what Carl
Fogel and Krygowski did and why and how. They called Andre Jute a liar
without waiting for him to put the facts on the table because the
speed story was just a pretext in a pre-planned character
assassination. They did it deliberately and with malicious forethought
because of *"clues ... elsewhere in his postings" (says Krygowski)
rather than any evidence in the speed event (which Jute had anyway not
yet presented) -- and because Carl Fogel didn't want someone
"flamboyant" (says Fogel) on his patch.

wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:52 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

That has nothing to do with it. I read Mr. Jute's post before Mr.
Fogel's reply, and did not see anything that pointed to it being an
obvious falsehood.

Well, that's a judgment call. *There were several people who judged
they saw several clues both in his tale, and elsewhere in his
postings.

Krygowski is telling us that this little Krygo-Fogel gang had decided
even before the speed test incident to drive me out by character
assassination. Ask yourself, how the **** can what I say "elsewhere"
be proof to Krygowski and Fogel that what I say about a speed test is
untrue? (And we shall see that Fogel called me a liar *before* I
stated the facts on the speed test.) In fact, Fogel has already told
us clearly that the speed test was just a suitable pretext because he
had previously decided I wouldn't do his gang any good:

***** I thought he was a blow-hard from the get-go, but I had no idea that
he was so flamboyant.

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...
*****

I made a devastating analysis of Krygowski's "judgement" and his
"several clues" to highlight how ludicrous they are; there's nothing
credible in Krygowski's inflated list of the difficulties of following
a truck downhill on a bicycle, not a single worthwhile point.http://groups..google.ie/group/rec.b...thread/thread/...
Krygowski has not replied; he merely invented some even more ludicrous
excuses like earthquakes and tried to put them in my mouth. Dismissed
with contempt.

Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Fogel posted an insinuation, while
avoiding a direct accusation, which is his style.

Let's calm down and examine the issue of insinuations. *First, you
know and I know that there are people who have posted lies on Usenet,
right?

How can this be justification for calling a specific person, me, a
liar?

If a person strongly suspects a person's account isn't correct or
factual, how should it be handled?

By offering proof. Not by deciding in advance that some person is an
undesirable and then using character assassination falsely to accuse
him on spurious "judgement" that cannot be substantiated by any facts.
You, Frank Krygowski, and your bumbuddy Carl Fogel, are character
assassins, and therefore immoral scum.

Should we immediately yell "Liar!!"? *I agree, we should not.

They why did that premature ejaculator Carl Fogel not even wait for me
to put the facts on the table before he shot his wad over his leg by
repeatedly calling me a liar? You and he have already told us: you
were looking for an opportunity to assassinate my character, Fogel
thought he saw it, and he got so excited at the prospect of hurting
someone, he went off at half-cock.

Should we believe absolutely everything that's posted? *Not a good
strategy.

This isn't about everything that is posted, or even everything I have
posted. This is about you, Frank Krygowski and Carl Fogel calling me a
liar on specifics which you failed to prove were not true, in fact in
advance of me stating the specifics. In other words, you two scumballs
lied in your attempt to discredit me. Then you and Fogel specifically
refused to apologise, confirming your guilt. Innocent men would have
said, "Gee, sorry for the misunderstanding. We didn't mean to give the
impression of calling you a liar." But Fogel, after being repeatedly
offered the opportunity to retract and apologize, and egged on by you
to refuse, specifically said "I won't."

Should we always remain silent, and hope someone else does the heavy
lifting? *Well, one could, but it's not contributing much to the
online community.

Where does an immoral slimeball like you, Krygowski, get the cheek to
talk about "contributing to the online community"? What do you plan to
contribute? More online character assassinations?

How about stating "I'd love to believe that, but it seems unlikely,"
or words to that effect, and perhaps giving an explanation of the
reasons for doubt?

How about asking for the facts and waiting until they're in before you
start flinging accusations of lying?

How about not deciding in advance on "clues ... elsewhere in his
postings" (the words of Frank Krygowski) that you will assassinate
someone's character at the first suitable opportunity? Your method and
your guilt are both proven by Carl Fogel's premature ejaculation.

That seems reasonable. It doesn't say "liar," because it allows for
other explanations, such as remembering wrongly, technical recording
errors, creative fiction, etc. *It's a polite way of expressing doubt
- something we must do from time to time, if we're not to be paralyzed
by political correctness.

Yawn. We already know what you and Fogel did and why and how,
Krygowski. You called me a liar without waiting for me to put the
facts on the table. You did it deliberately and with malicious
forethought because of *"clues ... elsewhere in his postings" -- and
because *that smarmy backstabber "Dear Carl" didn't want someone
"flamboyant" on his patch:http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...

And AFAICT, it's what Carl did.

Carl Fogel saw his opportunity through such a passion that he didn't
even realize I hadn't yet made the statement he intended to call a
lie, and shot his wad into empty space. Specifically, in the eighteen
hours before I put the facts on the table, Fogel twice volunteered the
accusation that I was a liar, then sneered at someone who told him I
should be given time to respond, then carried on a sneering jeering
correspondence with his street corner gang in which the presumtion was
that I had lied. Later, to cover up for the fact that I had in fact as
yet said nothing, Fogel developed the fiction that anything I said in
future would also be a lie, which ties in nicely with "clues ...
elsewhere in his postings". Here's the timeline of Carl Fogel's crime
passionelle (LOL):http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...
and here is Fogel's claim that whatever I say in future will be a lie:http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...

What would you do?

Not plot character assassinations in such an underhand way?

(And as an aside - do you _really_ prefer Jute's style to Carl's
style??)

If anyone still believes that Fogel called me a liar for any reason to
do with my little biking thrill behind the truck, that sentence should
disillusion him right smartly. This whole affair isn't about whether I
told the truth, it is about Carl Fogel's primacy at the top of a
dungheap. Fogel feared that the "flamboyant" Andre Jute would
overshadow him and decided to drive me out by character assassination.
(What a self-lacerating idiot; all Fogel had to do was nothing and I
would have stroked him to do my historical research for me if I ever
decide to write about bikes; and I would have raised the profile of
Fogel's buttboy Krygowski at the same time.)

- Frank Krygowski

And Fogel's buttboy Frank Krygowski just gave away the entire plot.

As I said before, Frankieboy, you really are too clumsy to indulge in
polemics with me. That was a warning, see. Now it is too late. The cat
is out of the bag.

But thanks, Frankie. Remind me to share no secrets with your slack
mouth and slacker brain.

Andre "The Interlocutor" Jute
An interrogation is a seduction, not a dental extraction.

In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:

(And as an aside - do you _really_ prefer Jute's style to Carl's
style??)

If anyone still believes that Fogel called me a liar for any reason to
do with my little biking thrill behind the truck, that sentence should
disillusion him right smartly.

Carl Fogel never called you a liar.

--
Michael Press

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
Funny how the slimeballs Carl Fogel and Frank Krygowski suddenly went
silent after I exposed their petty motive for their lies and their
false accusations, and for the trail of slime Krygowski and lesser
lights in the Krygo-Fogel Scum dragged across RBT in their attempts to
justify Fogel's false accusations, and Fogel's lies, and Fogel's
immoral refusal to confess, apologise and atone for his crimes against
decency, and ditto for Fogel's buttboy, Krygowski.

What a pair of half-assed plotters.

Andre Jute
Like taking candy from a baby


On Jan 28, 11:29 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
After Frank Krygowski's most recent revelations we know what Carl
Fogel and Krygowski did and why and how. They called Andre Jute a liar
without waiting for him to put the facts on the table because the
speed story was just a pretext in a pre-planned character
assassination. They did it deliberately and with malicious forethought
because of "clues ... elsewhere in his postings" (says Krygowski)
rather than any evidence in the speed event (which Jute had anyway not
yet presented) -- and because Carl Fogel didn't want someone
"flamboyant" (says Fogel) on his patch.

wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:52 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

That has nothing to do with it. I read Mr. Jute's post before Mr.
Fogel's reply, and did not see anything that pointed to it being an
obvious falsehood.

Well, that's a judgment call. There were several people who judged
they saw several clues both in his tale, and elsewhere in his
postings.

Krygowski is telling us that this little Krygo-Fogel gang had decided
even before the speed test incident to drive me out by character
assassination. Ask yourself, how the **** can what I say "elsewhere"
be proof to Krygowski and Fogel that what I say about a speed test is
untrue? (And we shall see that Fogel called me a liar *before* I
stated the facts on the speed test.) In fact, Fogel has already told
us clearly that the speed test was just a suitable pretext because he
had previously decided I wouldn't do his gang any good:

***** I thought he was a blow-hard from the get-go, but I had no idea
that
he was so flamboyant.

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...
*****

I made a devastating analysis of Krygowski's "judgement" and his
"several clues" to highlight how ludicrous they are; there's nothing
credible in Krygowski's inflated list of the difficulties of following
a truck downhill on a bicycle, not a single worthwhile
point.http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...
Krygowski has not replied; he merely invented some even more ludicrous
excuses like earthquakes and tried to put them in my mouth. Dismissed
with contempt.

Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Fogel posted an insinuation, while
avoiding a direct accusation, which is his style.

Let's calm down and examine the issue of insinuations. First, you
know and I know that there are people who have posted lies on Usenet,
right?

How can this be justification for calling a specific person, me, a
liar?

If a person strongly suspects a person's account isn't correct or
factual, how should it be handled?

By offering proof. Not by deciding in advance that some person is an
undesirable and then using character assassination falsely to accuse
him on spurious "judgement" that cannot be substantiated by any facts.
You, Frank Krygowski, and your bumbuddy Carl Fogel, are character
assassins, and therefore immoral scum.

Should we immediately yell "Liar!!"? I agree, we should not.

They why did that premature ejaculator Carl Fogel not even wait for me
to put the facts on the table before he shot his wad over his leg by
repeatedly calling me a liar? You and he have already told us: you
were looking for an opportunity to assassinate my character, Fogel
thought he saw it, and he got so excited at the prospect of hurting
someone, he went off at half-cock.

Should we believe absolutely everything that's posted? Not a good
strategy.

This isn't about everything that is posted, or even everything I have
posted. This is about you, Frank Krygowski and Carl Fogel calling me a
liar on specifics which you failed to prove were not true, in fact in
advance of me stating the specifics. In other words, you two scumballs
lied in your attempt to discredit me. Then you and Fogel specifically
refused to apologise, confirming your guilt. Innocent men would have
said, "Gee, sorry for the misunderstanding. We didn't mean to give the
impression of calling you a liar." But Fogel, after being repeatedly
offered the opportunity to retract and apologize, and egged on by you
to refuse, specifically said "I won't."

Should we always remain silent, and hope someone else does the heavy
lifting? Well, one could, but it's not contributing much to the
online community.

Where does an immoral slimeball like you, Krygowski, get the cheek to
talk about "contributing to the online community"? What do you plan to
contribute? More online character assassinations?

How about stating "I'd love to believe that, but it seems unlikely,"
or words to that effect, and perhaps giving an explanation of the
reasons for doubt?

How about asking for the facts and waiting until they're in before you
start flinging accusations of lying?

How about not deciding in advance on "clues ... elsewhere in his
postings" (the words of Frank Krygowski) that you will assassinate
someone's character at the first suitable opportunity? Your method and
your guilt are both proven by Carl Fogel's premature ejaculation.

That seems reasonable. It doesn't say "liar," because it allows for
other explanations, such as remembering wrongly, technical recording
errors, creative fiction, etc. It's a polite way of expressing doubt
- something we must do from time to time, if we're not to be paralyzed
by political correctness.

Yawn. We already know what you and Fogel did and why and how,
Krygowski. You called me a liar without waiting for me to put the
facts on the table. You did it deliberately and with malicious
forethought because of "clues ... elsewhere in his postings" -- and
because that smarmy backstabber "Dear Carl" didn't want someone
"flamboyant" on his
patch:http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...

And AFAICT, it's what Carl did.

Carl Fogel saw his opportunity through such a passion that he didn't
even realize I hadn't yet made the statement he intended to call a
lie, and shot his wad into empty space. Specifically, in the eighteen
hours before I put the facts on the table, Fogel twice volunteered the
accusation that I was a liar, then sneered at someone who told him I
should be given time to respond, then carried on a sneering jeering
correspondence with his street corner gang in which the presumtion was
that I had lied. Later, to cover up for the fact that I had in fact as
yet said nothing, Fogel developed the fiction that anything I said in
future would also be a lie, which ties in nicely with "clues ...
elsewhere in his postings". Here's the timeline of Carl Fogel's crime
passionelle
(LOL):http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...
and here is Fogel's claim that whatever I say in future will be a
lie:http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...

What would you do?

Not plot character assassinations in such an underhand way?

(And as an aside - do you _really_ prefer Jute's style to Carl's
style??)

If anyone still believes that Fogel called me a liar for any reason to
do with my little biking thrill behind the truck, that sentence should
disillusion him right smartly. This whole affair isn't about whether I
told the truth, it is about Carl Fogel's primacy at the top of a
dungheap. Fogel feared that the "flamboyant" Andre Jute would
overshadow him and decided to drive me out by character assassination.
(What a self-lacerating idiot; all Fogel had to do was nothing and I
would have stroked him to do my historical research for me if I ever
decide to write about bikes; and I would have raised the profile of
Fogel's buttboy Krygowski at the same time.)

- Frank Krygowski

And Fogel's buttboy Frank Krygowski just gave away the entire plot.

As I said before, Frankieboy, you really are too clumsy to indulge in
polemics with me. That was a warning, see. Now it is too late. The cat
is out of the bag.

But thanks, Frankie. Remind me to share no secrets with your slack
mouth and slacker brain.

Andre "The Interlocutor" Jute
An interrogation is a seduction, not a dental extraction.

Andre,
It's possible that they have added you to their killfiles.
Kerry

On Jan 29, 6:33*am, "Kerry Montgomery" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...
Funny how the slimeballs Carl Fogel and Frank Krygowski suddenly went
silent after I exposed their petty motive for their lies and their
false accusations, and for the trail of slime Krygowski and lesser
lights in the Krygo-Fogel Scum dragged across RBT in their attempts to
justify Fogel's false accusations, and Fogel's lies, and Fogel's
immoral refusal to confess, apologise and atone for his crimes against
decency, and ditto for Fogel's buttboy, Krygowski.

What a pair of half-assed plotters.

Andre Jute
Like taking candy from a baby

On Jan 28, 11:29 pm, Andre Jute wrote:



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
After Frank Krygowski's most recent revelations we know what Carl
Fogel and Krygowski did and why and how. They called Andre Jute a liar
without waiting for him to put the facts on the table because the
speed story was just a pretext in a pre-planned character
assassination. They did it deliberately and with malicious forethought
because of "clues ... elsewhere in his postings" (says Krygowski)
rather than any evidence in the speed event (which Jute had anyway not
yet presented) -- and because Carl Fogel didn't want someone
"flamboyant" (says Fogel) on his patch.

wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:52 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

That has nothing to do with it. I read Mr. Jute's post before Mr.
Fogel's reply, and did not see anything that pointed to it being an
obvious falsehood.

Well, that's a judgment call. There were several people who judged
they saw several clues both in his tale, and elsewhere in his
postings.

Krygowski is telling us that this little Krygo-Fogel gang had decided
even before the speed test incident to drive me out by character
assassination. Ask yourself, how the **** can what I say "elsewhere"
be proof to Krygowski and Fogel that what I say about a speed test is
untrue? (And we shall see that Fogel called me a liar *before* I
stated the facts on the speed test.) In fact, Fogel has already told
us clearly that the speed test was just a suitable pretext because he
had previously decided I wouldn't do his gang any good:

***** I thought he was a blow-hard from the get-go, but I had no idea
that
he was so flamboyant.

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...
*****

I made a devastating analysis of Krygowski's "judgement" and his
"several clues" to highlight how ludicrous they are; there's nothing
credible in Krygowski's inflated list of the difficulties of following
a truck downhill on a bicycle, not a single worthwhile
point.http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...
Krygowski has not replied; he merely invented some even more ludicrous
excuses like earthquakes and tried to put them in my mouth. Dismissed
with contempt.

Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Fogel posted an insinuation, while
avoiding a direct accusation, which is his style.

Let's calm down and examine the issue of insinuations. First, you
know and I know that there are people who have posted lies on Usenet,
right?

How can this be justification for calling a specific person, me, a
liar?

If a person strongly suspects a person's account isn't correct or
factual, how should it be handled?

By offering proof. Not by deciding in advance that some person is an
undesirable and then using character assassination falsely to accuse
him on spurious "judgement" that cannot be substantiated by any facts.
You, Frank Krygowski, and your bumbuddy Carl Fogel, are character
assassins, and therefore immoral scum.

Should we immediately yell "Liar!!"? I agree, we should not.

They why did that premature ejaculator Carl Fogel not even wait for me
to put the facts on the table before he shot his wad over his leg by
repeatedly calling me a liar? You and he have already told us: you
were looking for an opportunity to assassinate my character, Fogel
thought he saw it, and he got so excited at the prospect of hurting
someone, he went off at half-cock.

Should we believe absolutely everything that's posted? Not a good
strategy.

This isn't about everything that is posted, or even everything I have
posted. This is about you, Frank Krygowski and Carl Fogel calling me a
liar on specifics which you failed to prove were not true, in fact in
advance of me stating the specifics. In other words, you two scumballs
lied in your attempt to discredit me. Then you and Fogel specifically
refused to apologise, confirming your guilt. Innocent men would have
said, "Gee, sorry for the misunderstanding. We didn't mean to give the
impression of calling you a liar." But Fogel, after being repeatedly
offered the opportunity to retract and apologize, and egged on by you
to refuse, specifically said "I won't."

Should we always remain silent, and hope someone else does the heavy
lifting? Well, one could, but it's not contributing much to the
online community.

Where does an immoral slimeball like you, Krygowski, get the cheek to
talk about "contributing to the online community"? What do you plan to
contribute? More online character assassinations?

How about stating "I'd love to believe that, but it seems unlikely,"
or words to that effect, and perhaps giving an explanation of the
reasons for doubt?

How about asking for the facts and waiting until they're in before you
start flinging accusations of lying?

How about not deciding in advance on "clues ... elsewhere in his
postings" (the words of Frank Krygowski) that you will assassinate
someone's character at the first suitable opportunity? Your method and
your guilt are both proven by Carl Fogel's premature ejaculation.

That seems reasonable. It doesn't say "liar," because it allows for
other explanations, such as remembering wrongly, technical recording
errors, creative fiction, etc. It's a polite way of expressing doubt
- something we must do from time to time, if we're not to be paralyzed
by political correctness.

Yawn. We already know what you and Fogel did and why and how,
Krygowski. You called me a liar without waiting for me to put the
facts on the table. You did it deliberately and with malicious
forethought because of "clues ... elsewhere in his postings" -- and
because that smarmy backstabber "Dear Carl" didn't want someone
"flamboyant" on his
patch:http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...

And AFAICT, it's what Carl did.

Carl Fogel saw his opportunity through such a passion that he didn't
even realize I hadn't yet made the statement he intended to call a
lie, and shot his wad into empty space. Specifically, in the eighteen
hours before I put the facts on the table, Fogel twice volunteered the
accusation that I was a liar, then sneered at someone who told him I
should be given time to respond, then carried on a sneering jeering
correspondence with his street corner gang in which the presumtion was
that I had lied. Later, to cover up for the fact that I had in fact as
yet said nothing, Fogel developed the fiction that anything I said in
future would also be a lie, which ties in nicely with "clues ...
elsewhere in his postings". Here's the timeline of Carl Fogel's crime
passionelle
(LOL):http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...
and here is Fogel's claim that whatever I say in future will be a
lie:http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/...

What would you do?

Not plot character assassinations in such an underhand way?

(And as an aside - do you _really_ prefer Jute's style to Carl's
style??)

If anyone still believes that Fogel called me a liar for any reason to
do with my little biking thrill behind the truck, that sentence should
disillusion him right smartly. This whole affair isn't about whether I
told the truth, it is about Carl Fogel's primacy at the top of a
dungheap. Fogel feared that the "flamboyant" Andre Jute would
overshadow him and decided to drive me out by character assassination.
(What a self-lacerating idiot; all Fogel had to do was nothing and I
would have stroked him to do my historical research for me if I ever
decide to write about bikes; and I would have raised the profile of
Fogel's buttboy Krygowski at the same time.)

- Frank Krygowski

And Fogel's buttboy Frank Krygowski just gave away the entire plot.

As I said before, Frankieboy, you really are too clumsy to indulge in
polemics with me. That was a warning, see. Now it is too late. The cat
is out of the bag.

But thanks, Frankie. Remind me to share no secrets with your slack
mouth and slacker brain.

Andre "The Interlocutor" Jute
An interrogation is a seduction, not a dental extraction.

Andre,
It's possible that they have added you to their killfiles.
Kerry

Wouldn't that be great? It would be our guarantee that there will be
no recurrence of their stupidity.

But I don't think we should count on it. I think those two criminals
Fogel and Krygowski are reading every word and smouldering about how
they could have failed in a simple job like assassinating the
character of one middleaged intellectual, wearing spectacles.

I'll bet real money that Fogel is too self-centred to understand that
he pulled this ignominy down on his own head because his character and
spiteful, and and I'd bet less money that Krygowski is too stupid to
differ from his capo but that the stirrings of doubt are definitely
there in Krygo sluggish cerebellum.

The remaining question is whether they're stupid enough to try again.

Andre Jute
Everready. Duracell too.

On Jan 29, 6:03*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*Andre Jute wrote:

(And as an aside - do you _really_ prefer Jute's style to Carl's
style??)

If anyone still believes that Fogel called me a liar for any reason to
do with my little biking thrill behind the truck, that sentence should
disillusion him right smartly.

Carl Fogel never called you a liar.

--
Michael Press

Then produce Carl Fogel to explain how an entire newsgroup (excluding
only a handful of Krygo-Fogel Scummies) came to believe that Carl
Fogel called me a liar, and indeed called me a liar on facts I hadn't
yet stated. He can explain at the same time how come when he was
offered an opportunity to retract and apologise, he refused, saying "I
won't", thus confirming his guilt.

Andre Jute
Here and standing up for myself, unlike the false accuser Carl Fogel

GARBAGE

Andre,
It's possible that they have added you to their killfiles.
Kerry


I know I have as of right now. plonk

On Jan 29, 7:26 am, datakoll wrote:
GARBAGE

Succinct and correct analysis, I expect that Fogel labs will have/had
the same conclusion.

Andre Jute wrote:
...
Andre Jute
Everready. Duracell too.

What about my ex-employer, Rayovac?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth