Sunday, February 27, 2011

Alex and Charlie's Other Friend

This is only tangentially related to 9-11 Troof, but I thought it interesting enough to post anyway. In the rant that resulted in the shutting down of Two and a Half Men, Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones kept talking about this guy "Nails". Nails, of course, is the former major league baseball player Lenny Dykstra, and they bring him on the show with them during this segment:



Dykstra was a hard-nosed baseball player in the Pete Rose mold, which made him a fan favorite wherever he played (for the NY Mets in 1986-89 and the Philadelphia Phillies from 1989-96). Unfortunately, he did not have Rose's talent, brains or class (and yes, comparing him negatively to Charlie Hustle in those latter two qualities is very much an insult). He finally washed out of baseball and, astonishing everyone who knew him in his playing days, transformed himself into a successful businessman through buying and selling a chain of car washes for millions and becoming something of an investment guru. He ended up owning Wayne Gretzky's old $18.5 million house, was chauffeured around in his $400,000 automobile and was flown around the country in his Gulfstream jet.

Unfortunately, as you can probably guess from the fact that he's a buddy of Charlie Sheen, it was all a house of cards that has come crashing down around him. Here are two terrific articles on "Nails" and his post-playing career:

You Think Your Job Sucks? Try Working for Lenny Dykstra

Dykstra's business: a bed of 'Nails'

Some details from the latter:
Even members of Dykstra's family are lined up on the list of those to whom he owes money. His older brother, Brian, has yet to collect a $12,000 judgment awarded by the California Labor Relations Board. His younger brother, Kevin, alleges Dykstra cheated him out of $4 million on the sale of the family-run car washes, though Kevin hasn't filed suit.

On April 16, Terri, Dykstra's wife of more than 20 years and the mother of their three boys, filed for divorce. Through her attorney, she declined to comment for this story.

The family rift runs so deep that until recently, Dykstra had spoken to his mother only once in the past three years, according to his brothers, and wasn't allowing her any contact with his sons, her grand children.

Last month, though, on March 23, Dykstra picked up the phone and woke up his mother with a call at around 6 in the morning, according to Kevin Dykstra, his younger brother. Lenny was stranded in Cleveland. He wanted to charter a jet so he could get to a business meeting on the West Coast, and his credit cards were maxed out. He needed nearly $23,000 and asked his mother for it, Kevin says.

His mother agreed to let him use her credit card.

Kevin Dykstra says she has yet to be repaid.


And, yeah, he's got Sheen's taste for painted hussies (although Sheen at least pays them):

Porn star Monica Foster, who's accusing Lenny Dykstra of bouncing a $1,000 check to her for escort services, tells RadarOnline.com the baseball player-turned-businessman "is a coward" who "thinks he can just treat people like crap."


And other things:
Kevin Dykstra acknowledges that he briefed investigators for the Mitchell report as well as Major League Baseball security on what he describes as Lenny's use of recreational and performance-enhancing drugs during his playing days. Kevin says he was a source of the drugs for his brother, even after Lenny's baseball career ended.

97 Comments:

At 27 February, 2011 13:30, Blogger texasjack said...

Dykstra has had a couple of sexual charges against him that haven't stuck, one a sexual assault of an under-aged girl and the other demanding a bj from his maid. Although charges were dropped, it makes you wonder why he is buddies with a sexual fiend like Sheen.

I just hope his son, Cutter, a 2nd round draft pick in MLB, and a helluva an athlete doesn't follow his footsteps outside of baseball.

 
At 27 February, 2011 14:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

So I guess you have no specific criticisms of Jones's methodology, logic, or conclusions?

 
At 27 February, 2011 15:02, Blogger Triterope said...

In the history of sports, has there ever been more assholes on one team than the 1986 New York Mets?

 
At 27 February, 2011 15:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm glad you guys are finally discussing something you're qualified to discuss.

 
At 27 February, 2011 15:40, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So I guess you have no specific criticisms of Jones's methodology, logic, or conclusions?

Let me guess. You're going to argue that the paper is scientifically valid, and then in the next breath claim that you're neutral on the topic of thermite. Right?

 
At 27 February, 2011 15:51, Blogger Triterope said...

I'm glad you guys are finally discussing something you're qualified to discuss.

No, we're discussing the actual topic of the thread. You should try it sometime.

 
At 27 February, 2011 15:56, Blogger Ian said...

In the history of sports, has there ever been more assholes on one team than the 1986 New York Mets?

The 1993 Phillies come close. Lenny was a big part of that team too.

 
At 27 February, 2011 15:59, Blogger Ian said...

So I guess you have no specific criticisms of Jones's methodology, logic, or conclusions?

I'm glad you guys are finally discussing something you're qualified to discuss.


Wow, Brian is really desperate for attention. It almost as if this blog is the only place where anyone even acknowledges his existence.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:14, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Painted Hussies?

There's an inside job I can get behind.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester whines, "...So I guess you have no specific criticisms of Jones's methodology, logic, or conclusions?"

What's the point? You would understand them if he did.

After all, you're so dense that light bends around you.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:17, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I don't follow baseball so I had honestly never heard of the guy. But what a fascinating case of asshattery. http://www.gq.com/sports/profiles/200903/lenny-dykstra-magazine is a good read.

I can see why Charlie Sheen likes him.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

M Gregory Ferris wrote, "...Painted Hussies"

In the goat molester's case, that would be Hainted Pussies.

Henceforth, let's refer to the goat molester as The Palo Alto Manpussy or, if you prefer, The Palo Alto Mangina.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:26, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

There's an inside job I can get behind.

Oh my. I'd never heard of Monica Foster either but... yeah. Hot. Hot enough to PUT THOUSANDS OF TONS OF MOLTEN IRON IN THE DUST, PAT.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:29, Blogger Triterope said...

The 1993 Phillies come close. Lenny was a big part of that team too.

Nah, that team was more oddballs than assholes. They don't have nearly the rap sheet. Plus they lost in spectacular fashion, rather than winning that way, which makes them a lot less hateworthy.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, no I am not going to argue for the paper's validity until its result are replicated by an independent lab. I will however point out any shortcomings that I see in criticisms of the paper.

MGF, painted hussies are a dime a dozen.

GutterBilge, "Mangina" is pretty good. I never heard that one before. Of course I'll take it as an indication that my "GoiterBoob" crack stuck. If you think that picture makes you look good, you must be really awful. And what's with the pudgy, stubby fingers? Those are a trumpeter's fingers, not a guitarist's. Have you considered switching over to electronic trumpet? Or are you just really hung up on fingering that long skinny thing that comes out from your crotch?

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:36, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, no I am not going to argue for the paper's validity until its result are replicated by an independent lab. I will however point out any shortcomings that I see in criticisms of the paper.

Suppose that, by some confluence of events, NIST was able to replicate the results. Would you accept the paper's validity?

(On the topic of hussies, my verification word is "genho".)

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...If you think that picture makes you look good, you must be really awful."

Having homosexual fantasies again, mangina?

"...And what's with the pudgy, stubby fingers?"

I don't have "pudgy, stubby fingers." The only thing you've managed to prove is that your hectic masturbation schedule (every 30 minutes, according to Willie Rod) has rendered you blind.

"...Those are a trumpeter's fingers, not a guitarist's."

As opposed to what? Your favorite hobby (playing the rusty trombone)?

"...Or are you just really hung up on fingering that long skinny thing that comes out from your crotch?"

Projecting your homosexual fantasies again, mangina?

The Palo Alto Manpussy--he's the reason brothers and sisters shouldn't marry.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:46, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, painted hussies are a dime a dozen."

Add women to the list of things Brian has no clue about.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:53, Blogger Ian said...

Nah, that team was more oddballs than assholes. They don't have nearly the rap sheet. Plus they lost in spectacular fashion, rather than winning that way, which makes them a lot less hateworthy.

If you haven't read "The Bad Guys Won" by Jeff Pearlman about the 1986 Mets, do so. It's hilarious and sad at the same time. It also beats reading Steven Jones papers.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, if NIST verified Jones's results would I accept them? I don't know. If NIST verified the results I would read the paper, and then I'd let you know if I accepted it.

GutterBall, I don't know where you get the idea that an observation about your pudgy physique represents a homosexual fantasy. Buff you ain't. I bet you're a real "hung stub".

I don't know why you'd think that Willie R is an expert on any part of my schedule.

MGF, oh, painted hussies are not a dime a dozen? Thanks for setting me straight on that.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

M Gregory Ferris wrote, "...Add women to the list of things Brian has no clue about."

Correct!

After all, there's not a woman in the world who's so desperate that she'd pay attention to the Palo Alto Mangina.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Manpussy whines, "...GutterBall, I don't know where you get the idea that an observation about your pudgy physique represents a homosexual fantasy. Buff you ain't. I bet you're a real 'hung stub'."

Fantasizing about my cock again, mangina? Freak.

Don't break your limp-wrist, Aunt Fancy.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:29, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, if NIST verified Jones's results would I accept them? I don't know. If NIST verified the results I would read the paper, and then I'd let you know if I accepted it.

NIST is not independent, as you have pointed out. Doesn't that automatically disqualify any position they take?

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST is not independent of itself. NIST is certainly independent of the Jones Harrit team.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The idiot mangina scribbles, "...NIST is not independent of itself. NIST is certainly independent of the Jones Harrit team."

Well, RGT, if you were looking for an answer to your question, the mangina's "reply" should dispel any doubts that you can expect nothing but a 100% fact-free non-response from our resident cretin.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

GoiterBoob, do you have any specific criticism of my response, or are you just going to mutter imprecations every time I post something.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Everything you write is bullshit, mangina. If it wasn't for intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacies, you'd have nothing at all.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:59, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

If you take five minutes to google the women Sheen has been, uh, with in the last 60 days you will find a high price tag attached.

[note, if you search using google images then keep kleenex handy for those iron spheres]

For fun why don't you wander into the Pink Poodle [the best nudie bar in Silicon Valley] and explain your dime-a-dozen theory to them.

 
At 27 February, 2011 18:04, Blogger Ian said...

GoiterBoob, do you have any specific criticism of my response, or are you just going to mutter imprecations every time I post something.

Brian, we're talking about Lenny Dykstra here. There are plenty of other threads where you can post your babbling spam.

 
At 27 February, 2011 18:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

M Gregory Ferris wrote, "...For fun why don't you wander into the Pink Poodle [the best nudie bar in Silicon Valley] and explain your dime-a-dozen theory to them."

The Palo Alto Mangina was 86ed from the Pink Poodle. He tried to bake and then eat the urinal cakes.

 
At 27 February, 2011 18:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

NIST is not independent of itself. NIST is certainly independent of the Jones Harrit team.

NIST is also independent of PETA and the Aryan Nation, but that's irrelevant. The question is whether your skepticism of NIST is influenced by the degree to which NIST happens to agree with you. You seem reluctant to answer the question.

 
At 27 February, 2011 19:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Well, RGT, if you were looking for an answer to your question, the mangina's "reply" should dispel any doubts that you can expect nothing but a 100% fact-free non-response from our resident cretin.

Snug's really very good at what he does, sort of diverting the conversation into the cracks between the issues. He'd be skilled at creating doubt in front of a jury. It'd be a shame if he really does scrub toilets.

 
At 27 February, 2011 19:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT wrote, "...He'd be skilled at creating doubt in front of a jury."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The goat molester split hairs like an ambulance chaser with a gerbil shoved up his behind.

His behavior is precisely like that of a corrupt defense lawyer, whose dishonest defense tactics have allowed a variety of criminals to prevail in court and, as a result, avoid paying for their crimes. And he's twice as annoying.

 
At 27 February, 2011 19:34, Blogger Triterope said...

He'd be skilled at creating doubt in front of a jury.

Yes, if he were allowed to do whatever he wants, as he is here. In court you have to stick to the subject. Or demonstrate the relevance of anything you wish to introduce.

Anyone could defeat Brian in court by simply memorizing the phrases "Objection, Your Honor, relevance" and "Objection, Your Honor, asked and answered."

 
At 27 February, 2011 20:08, Blogger Ian said...

Don't forget "objection, your honor, assumes facts not in evidence."

 
At 27 February, 2011 20:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Hey GoiterBoob, thanks for clearing that up. You have no specific criticism of my response, you're just going to mutter imprecations.

I used to live not too far from the Pink Poodle. Never went in that place, though I used to go to Street Light Records across the street and the thrift store at San Carlos.

RGT, the NIST report is assembled out of a whole lot of components. Some of the components are solid and some are not. Sometimes solid work is given a dishonest spin. I would have to evaluate the methodology and logic of any NIST work before I would decide if I accepted it or not.

 
At 27 February, 2011 22:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Who cares whether a compulsive liar accepts the NIST Report?

And we know you're a liar, because when we ask you to substantiate your ideas, you change the subject.

 
At 27 February, 2011 23:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 27 February, 2011 23:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterFail, obviously RGT cares about my opinion because he asked for it.

As to the other issue, would you care to substantiate that claim?

 
At 28 February, 2011 01:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Given your latest humiliating defeat, the answer is obvious.

It's not possible to substantiate lies--you idiot.

And you're the first "sciency" guy (your words) I've ever encountered who, when given a simple equation, can't solve for an unknown variable.

You're lame, goat molester. Pathetic and lame.

 
At 28 February, 2011 04:36, Blogger Ian said...

And of course, "objection your honor, speculation."

 
At 28 February, 2011 06:03, Blogger Triterope said...

Don't forget "objection, your honor, assumes facts not in evidence."

And of course, "objection your honor, speculation."


Yeah, those too.

 
At 28 February, 2011 08:26, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

911 Truth on to Wisconsin! | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty

On to Wisconsin with this sign:
911 Truth will end the wars. Ending the wars will fix the budget. WALK LIKE AN EGYPTIAN NOW.

Desperate for attention truthers want to latch onto the thing in Wisconsin.

 
At 28 February, 2011 08:45, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

From DK's link:

$3 trillion Dov Zakheim and Donald Rumsfeld stole from the Pentagon on the day before 911...

Keep repeating those lies boys.

 
At 28 February, 2011 11:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, what makes you think I can't do your equation. Did Ian's Uncle Steve tell you that? Hey, I'm not going to come and wash your car, either.

GMS, yeah, that $3 trillion business, if it wasn't done by Barrett, is certainly his style. He likes to overstate things to get attention, and doesn't care if it makes us look stupid.

 
At 28 February, 2011 14:51, Blogger Ian said...

It's amazing how Brian has the time to post his babble all day, every day during what would be normal business hours on the west coast.

It's almost as if he's unemployed and lives with his parents. As he told us, "I used to be a janitor..."

 
At 28 February, 2011 18:19, Blogger bacci40 said...

is dykstra really a bud, or is carlos using him for research regarding the upcoming major league 4?

oh...and who wants to be that the movie never gets made now

 
At 28 February, 2011 18:20, Blogger bacci40 said...

snug.bug

jones is a nutter

if you dont see that, you are as big a nutter as he

 
At 28 February, 2011 18:43, Blogger Triterope said...

Desperate for attention truthers want to latch onto the thing in Wisconsin.

That's been going on for what, two weeks now? And they're just now going up there? Sheesh, they can't even organize a failed co-opting anymore.

 
At 28 February, 2011 22:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, business hours are for clerks.

Hey, I'm still a janitor. I take out trash like you every day.

 
At 01 March, 2011 04:38, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, business hours are for clerks.

And for people with jobs, which you don't have, because you're a failed janitor.

Hey, I'm still a janitor. I take out trash like you every day.

See what I mean about "failed"?

 
At 01 March, 2011 07:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, what makes you think I can't do your equation."

Because when asked two simple questions, you refused to provide an answer.

The proof's in the pudding, and you can't answer the questions.

Conclusion: FAIL

"...Did Ian's Uncle Steve tell you that? Hey, I'm not going to come and wash your car, either."

Resorting to stonewalling tactics does not constitute debate. You repeatedly resort to appeal to permanent unknowability, which is a tactic designed to end debate. When asked to substantiate your argument with quotes from the RJ Lee Report, you ignored my requests for the relevant information, which is another tactic designed to cut off further discussion (ie., blatant stonewalling). The reason you ignored my requests is easy to determine. You ignored my requests because you lied about the contents of the RJ Lee Report. In fact, you refused to answer my questions because to do so would instantly nullify your argument.

Thus, you lose the debate because you failed to provide confirming evidence in the face of repeated opportunities to do so--which is intellectually dishonest, and constitutes blatant stonewalling.

Conclusion: Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.

 
At 01 March, 2011 11:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, where do you get the idea that I don't have a job? Did your Uncle Steve tell you that?

GutterFail, the proof of the pudding is that you must resort to empty boilerplate bald assertions instead of facing facts.

 
At 01 March, 2011 11:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterFail, the proof of the pudding is that you must resort to empty boilerplate bald assertions instead of facing facts."

That's not an answer, goat molester, it's more evasion and stonewalling.

You haven't proven anything, goat molester. Well, you've proven that you're not above stonewalling and changing the subject when you're caught lying.

Now get back to this thread, and answer my questions--you lying, stonewalling, intellectually dishonest shit bag.

I'm waiting, goat molester.

Failure to answer my questions is not debate, it's stonewalling.

Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.

So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?

Now, get to work, goat molester, because you're sinking fast.

 
At 01 March, 2011 12:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I'm not trying to prove anything. Answer your own silly questions, and stop spamming everuy thread with the same off-topic bs.

 
At 01 March, 2011 13:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat molester, that's another evasion.

Now get back to this thread, and answer my questions--you lying, stonewalling, intellectually dishonest shit bag.

If you're not lying, then you should have nothing to hide.

Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.

So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 01 March, 2011 13:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterBilge, I'm not hiding anything. You are, with dozens of repetitive, off-topic, scrambled, often irrational posts. Do you have a point?

 
At 01 March, 2011 13:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat molester, that's another evasion.

Now get back to this thread, and answer my questions--you lying, stonewalling, intellectually dishonest shit bag.

If you're not lying, then you should have nothing to hide.

Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.

So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?

IF YOU EVADE MY QUESTIONS ONE MORE TIME, YOU AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT THE DEBATE.

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 01 March, 2011 15:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

What debate is that? Do you have a point?

 
At 01 March, 2011 17:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Stonewalling is NOT debate--you lying scumbag! Stonewalling will earn you a big, fat "F" in a college debate course.

I gave you at least a DOZEN chances to answer the questions, and you continued to stonewall; thus,

FAIL.

END OF STORY. YOU LOSE.

Now put a fork in it--you no account charlatan.

 
At 01 March, 2011 17:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

You give me a dozen chances to knock a chip off your shoulder and I lose how? You remind me a lot of Rob Balsamo and Craig Ranke, GaytardBully.

 
At 01 March, 2011 17:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Again, stonewalling is NOT debate--you lying scumbag! Stonewalling will earn you a big, fat "F" in a college debate course.

I gave you at least a DOZEN chances to answer the questions, and you continued to stonewall; thus,

FAIL.

END OF STORY. YOU LOSE.

Now put a fork in it--you no account charlatan.

 
At 01 March, 2011 18:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Again, only a fool would think that spamming the same old nonsense is "winning". You really are a pathetic brat, you know that UtterFail?

 
At 01 March, 2011 20:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, where do you get the idea that I don't have a job? Did your Uncle Steve tell you that?

No, Kevin Barrett did, and I know he wouldn't lie.

C'mon Brian, how could you have a job when you spend every waking hour glued to your computer babbling about Willie Rodriguez and magic thermite elves?

 
At 02 March, 2011 00:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it may come as a surprise to you, but some jobs are more about being responsible for something than they are about doing something. We don't all make burritos. That's one of the cool things about janitorial work. Once you've spent a few weeks getting the place clean, a swiffer and a wet rag is enough to keep it spiffy.

 
At 02 March, 2011 10:14, Blogger Triterope said...

Once you've spent a few weeks getting the place clean, a swiffer and a wet rag is enough to keep it spiffy.

Jeezus Brian, you can't even make a coherent cleaning metaphor?

 
At 02 March, 2011 10:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

What's incoherent about the metaphor?
Maybe you don't know what a swiffer is?

 
At 02 March, 2011 11:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Again, only a fool would think that spamming the same old nonsense is "winning". You really are a pathetic brat, you know that UtterFail?"

You're the one who ran from thread-to-thread posting spam in order to hijack the threads. So don't blame me for your bad behavior, asshole.

And you still haven't answered my questions. Thus, you're STONEWALLING, which will get you a big fat "F" in a debate course.

You're a typical troofer Nazi, goat molester. You accuse your opponent of the crimes YOU Commit.

 
At 02 March, 2011 11:19, Blogger Triterope said...

What's incoherent about the metaphor?

I'm not going to play this game with you.

 
At 02 March, 2011 11:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh I see, TR. You make bald assertions, but asking you to back them up with specifics is playing a game. When you can come up with a coherent metaphor for demanding some rigor, let me know. That ain't it.

GutterBall, once I've shown someone for a liar, debating them is a waste of time.

 
At 02 March, 2011 12:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, once I've shown someone for a liar, debating them is a waste of time."

You haven't proven anything.

The only thing you've proven is your own lack of integrity and boundless intellectual dishonesty.

 
At 02 March, 2011 12:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, I see. You were not "lying" when you claimed that NCSTAR1 said "annealing", because NCSTAR1 actually does say annealing. It was simply "clever" of you to give the impression that NCSTAR1 said "structural annealing evaluation" on p. 99 when it does not.

If truth is on your side, why is it necessary for you to shit on it so often?

 
At 02 March, 2011 12:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you lied in your first post in this thread when you claimed I wouldn't understand texasjack's specific criticisms of Dr. Jones's paper.

You lie so habitually you don't even notice anymore.

 
At 02 March, 2011 12:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Oh, I see. You were not "lying" when you claimed that NCSTAR1 said "annealing", because NCSTAR1 actually does say annealing."

Lying agin, goat molester?

I have the NIST Report in front of me, and the draft clearly says "annealing." Clearly, you have an old version of the draft. That doesn't mean I'm lying--you stupid SOB.

"...It was simply "clever" of you to give the impression that NCSTAR1 said "structural annealing evaluation" on p. 99 when it does not."

False. And you've provided not one iota of evidence to substantiate your babbling bullshit.

FAIL

"...If truth is on your side, why is it necessary for you to shit on it so often?"

Making another bogus accusation without the benefit of evidence, asshole?

If the "truth" is on your side, why do you stonewall and refuse to answer my questions?

Again, notice that I can substantiate my argument with links to valid data, while you lie and toss around your opinion and pretend your opinion is a "fact."

FAIL

 
At 02 March, 2011 13:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you lied in your first post in this thread when you claimed I wouldn't understand texasjack's specific criticisms of Dr. Jones's paper."

You're hallucinating, goat molester. Having a flashback from the 60's, grandpa?

My first post to this thread has nothing to do with "teaxasjack".

"...You lie so habitually you don't even notice anymore."

Projecting again, goat molester?

 
At 02 March, 2011 13:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 March, 2011 13:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, the term "annealing" appears once in the NCSTAR1 report. That's on page 180, in the context of discussion of the examination of 236 physical steel samples.

The term does not appear on page 99 in the context of discussion of ANSYS computer models, though you dishonestly try to imply that it does. Page 99 goes on the discuss the fact that the model was about structural response. The temperatures in the simulation were assumptions, not descriptions.
You are incompetently and/or dishonestly trying to confuse the distinction.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 
At 02 March, 2011 14:31, Blogger Triterope said...

Oh I see, TR. You make bald assertions, but asking you to back them up with specifics is playing a game.

With you? Yes.

 
At 02 March, 2011 15:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Bill, Brian is a psychopath. Psychopaths are attracted to cons, because they love to fool and manipulate people...Brian doesn't give a shit about 9/11, he is just in it for the con-game. He will never concede that he's wrong because deep down he doesn't care. The con is all he has." -- M. Gregory Ferris

Truer words were never written.

Babble on, goat molester.

 
At 02 March, 2011 17:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can't handle the truth.

 
At 02 March, 2011 18:02, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, it may come as a surprise to you, but some jobs are more about being responsible for something than they are about doing something. We don't all make burritos. That's one of the cool things about janitorial work. Once you've spent a few weeks getting the place clean, a swiffer and a wet rag is enough to keep it spiffy.

Brian, you don't do janitorial work. You're a failed janitor with no job, remember?

What's incoherent about the metaphor?
Maybe you don't know what a swiffer is?


And you post dumbspam to obscure your failures.

Oh I see, TR. You make bald assertions, but asking you to back them up with specifics is playing a game. When you can come up with a coherent metaphor for demanding some rigor, let me know. That ain't it.

See what I mean?

 
At 02 March, 2011 18:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what makes you think I don't have a job?

 
At 02 March, 2011 20:50, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what makes you think I don't have a job?

The fact that you spend every waking hour babbling on the internet about nothing? The fact that everyone who knows you says you're unemployed? The fact that it bothers you to no end that I keep pointing out that you're an unemployed loser who lives with your parents?

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 02 March, 2011 22:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what makes you think I spend every waking hour babbling on the internet? Oh right, on Planet Ian, I have thirty different internet identities. Is that what your imaginary friends tell you?

 
At 03 March, 2011 04:39, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what makes you think I spend every waking hour babbling on the internet?

Uh, just LOOK at any of the threads on this blog over the last 2 years: endless babbling by you.

And that's just here. I can't imagine how many other blogs and forums and websites you spend all the rest of your time babbling about the same nonsense: invisible widows, magic thermite elves, "essentially in free-fall" and your love for Willie Rodriguez.

Oh right, on Planet Ian, I have thirty different internet identities.

No, that's planet earth: petgoat, punxsutawneybarney, contrivance, truetruther, and a host of others.

Anyway, the fact that you're squealing so desperately about this tells me I'm on the right track about your status as an unemployed loser who lives with his parents.

 
At 03 March, 2011 09:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the widows are only invisible to you. They are considerably more visible that your Uncle Steve. You live in a fantasy world and, because it's so conventional, you don't even know it. I bet you dream about soggy cornflakes and paper towels.

 
At 03 March, 2011 16:03, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the widows are only invisible to you.

False.

They are considerably more visible that your Uncle Steve.

Uncle Steve is not a widow(er). He's happily married to my Aunt Marie.

You live in a fantasy world and, because it's so conventional, you don't even know it.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Hey Brian, has their been a new investigation yet? HA HA HA HA!!!

I bet you dream about soggy cornflakes and paper towels.

Seek professional help.

 
At 03 March, 2011 16:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

See? I knew he dreamed about soggy cornflakes and paper towels!

 
At 03 March, 2011 16:48, Blogger Ian said...

See? I knew he dreamed about soggy cornflakes and paper towels!

So you admit the widows have no questions? Alright then, now we're getting somewhere.

 
At 03 March, 2011 22:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

The widows have 273 unanaswered questions and you, like an 8-year-old girl, think silly is cute. It's not.

 
At 04 March, 2011 04:44, Blogger Ian said...

The widows have 273 unanaswered questions and you, like an 8-year-old girl, think silly is cute. It's not.

Brian, you just told us the widows have no questions. Try reading your own posts.

 
At 05 March, 2011 13:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never said any such thing. You seem to get some kind of kinky thrill out of lying under an anonymous name on the internet.

 
At 05 March, 2011 14:25, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never said any such thing. You seem to get some kind of kinky thrill out of lying under an anonymous name on the internet.

Brian, your claim that you never said any such thing is illogical. You make up your facts.

 
At 05 March, 2011 15:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's nothing illogical about it.

 
At 05 March, 2011 16:10, Blogger Ian said...

There's nothing illogical about it.

Where did you get the idea that there's nothing illogical about it is amusing. Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

 
At 05 March, 2011 16:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

I got the idea because you have not and can not show anything illogical about it.

 
At 05 March, 2011 16:38, Blogger Ian said...

I got the idea because you have not and can not show anything illogical about it.

Still babbling, huh Brian? Why don't you pick up a better hobby than 9/11 truth?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home