Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Yet Another Member of Convicted Sex Offenders for 9-11 Truth



Box Boy Gage is thrilled to introduce John DiNatale a former Marine with five degrees in engineering who's now a volunteer at Architects and Engineers. As usual, I suspect that Richard has done an excellent job of vetting Mr DiNatale; pity he didn't just Google the guy.

SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (SEXUAL ABUSE 2ND DEGREE)
SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT)

As you can see he was convicted of those crimes in two separate trials, once in New York and the other in New Jersey.  Looking at the victim information, it's pretty obvious he was fooling around with an underaged girl.

I also have my doubts about his military service; I suspect he got those ribbons and medals at a pawn shop.  He talks about crawling through a minefield; somehow I doubt that's the recommended procedure.  Some discussion here about his claimed military service.

Hat tip: CJNewson88 at JREF.

50 Comments:

At 25 September, 2013 00:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat wrote, "...SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (SEXUAL ABUSE 2ND DEGREE) SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT)"

Gosh, the "truthers" would never associate with a sex predator, would they?

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

Pat wrote, "...Looking at the victim information, it's pretty obvious he was fooling around with an under-aged girl."

Yep, under-aged Chinese gymnasts are next...

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

Nah, the "truthers" would never associate with a sex predator, nor would they ban him from the "truth" movement...that would never happen.

 
At 25 September, 2013 10:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

GuitarBill, you are libeling me from behind your anonymous internet ID. What is your real name and what is the name of your legal counsel?

Look at you, citing Kevin Barrett as if he were some kind of authority! What a doofus! How many people did Barrett get to his
Midwest Conference, eh smart guy?

 
At 25 September, 2013 12:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...GuitarBill, you are libeling me from behind your anonymous internet ID. What is your real name and what is the name of your legal counsel?"

Squeal, squeal, squeal.

You want to spam SLC with nonsense, liar? Well, there are consequences, asshole. Deal with it, liar.

The lying liar lies, "...Look at you, citing Kevin Barrett as if he were some kind of authority! What a doofus! How many people did Barrett get to his Midwest Conference, eh smart guy?"

I didn't cite Kevin Barrett, I cited SLC, where you were exposed as a sex stalker, a liar and a con artist. Kevin Barrett, moreover, is not my "friend," he's your fellow troofer. Since you associate with conspiracy theory-spewing crazies, you have no room to complain when sane people point their fingers at you and laugh.

Face it, cunt, you're a laughingstock. You don't like it, asshole? THEN GET THE FUCK OUT. The choice is simple, sex predator, so don't complain when your degeneracy is exposed for all to see. You have no one to blame BUT YOURSELF.

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 25 September, 2013 15:22, Blogger Ian said...

GuitarBill, you are libeling me from behind your anonymous internet ID. What is your real name and what is the name of your legal counsel?

I see Brian is trying to squelch people's free speech again. Typical Bushcist behavior.

 
At 25 September, 2013 20:38, Blogger David Banner said...

Didn't Brian get convicted of being a sex predator when he made sexual advances to Carol?

 
At 25 September, 2013 22:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, libel is a crime for good reason.

Truth is a defense for good reason too. I can call Barrett a bigot and Willie a fraud and that's not libel, because I can prove it's true.

GutterBall can't say what he says because it's not true.

 
At 25 September, 2013 23:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...Ian, libel is a crime for good reason."

Yeah, and it's called "sex predation" for a good reason, too, pervert.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

The lying liar lies, "...Truth is a defense for good reason too. I can call Barrett a bigot and Willie a fraud and that's not libel, because I can prove it's true."

Proof requires evidence. Too bad you can't provide evidence to substantiate your lies.

"...I literally had to kick him out. This guy [Rodriguez] wanted to stay with me all the time...This is the true hero of 9/11." -- PA Officer David Lim

Officer Lim is an eyewitness to Willie's heroics; you, on the other hand, were masturbating 3,000 miles away on the other side of the United States on that fateful day. Thus, your propaganda isn't worth the bandwidth and the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

Once again, you FAIL, liar.

The lying liar whines, "...GutterBall can't say what he says because it's not true."

Says who? The college dropout and proven compulsive liar who can't substantiate ONE WORD HE'S SCRIBBLED TO SLC? Fuck you, liar.

BRIAN GOOD -- INTERNET VANDAL AND SEX STALKER EXPOSED

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

 
At 26 September, 2013 00:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And don't hold up your bogus "statistics" as "evidence," -- you lying 'tard. You're NOT a "statistician," you're a college dropout who can't hold down a job mopping floors -- so STFU.

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 26 September, 2013 00:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can provide the evidence to support the claim that Barrett is a bigot.

Listen to his AM radio broadcast where he characterized the holocaust as "toasting 6 million Jews".

Officer Lim left Willie out of his 9/11 Commission testimony, and currently refuses to comment on Willie's story.

What makes you think I dropped out of college, UtterFool?

How do you know where I was on 9/11?

I didn't say I was a statistician. I don't need to be a statistician to note that if only 100 civilians died under the impact zones, then the death statistics on Willie's 39 floors are no better than on any of the other 120-something floors under the impact zone.

 
At 26 September, 2013 00:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...Listen to his AM radio broadcast where he characterized the holocaust as "toasting 6 million Jews"."

That's an assertion, not EVIDENCE, liar. No links, and no direct quotes, YOU FAIL. All you have are quotes TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT -- and your steadfast refusal to provide COMPLETE, DIRECT QUOTES PROVES YOU'RE LYING.

The lying liar lies, "...What makes you think I dropped out of college, UtterFool?"

Because you're a blowhard who can't provide REAL EVIDENCE to show that you understand mathematics and physics.

Proof? Right here, liar:

Now stop BICKERING AND ANSWER THE GODDAMNED QUESTIONS:

You claim that you're "smarter, better-looking, and better-educated" than me. Yet, when challenged to demonstrate your alleged "intellectual superiority", you run away squealing and crying.

Now, either substantiate your assertion, or STFU -- you incompetent liar:

[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.

[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.

[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states

F = ma

derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.

[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.

[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.

[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?

Now STONEWALL, and lie, scumbag.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

BRIAN GOOD CAN'T DO FRESHMAN IN COLLEGE-LEVEL MATH OR PHYSICS.

Now change the subject and lie, pervert.

 
At 26 September, 2013 00:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...I didn't say I was a statistician. I don't need to be a statistician to note...[blah][blah][balh]."

See what I mean? All you have is your 100% fact-free OPINION. You don't know FUCK-ALL about statistics, liar.

All you have is a big mouth and ZERO evidence.

Once again, you FAIL, liar.

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 26 September, 2013 00:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at UtterFail, stamping his little patent leather pig feet!

We've been over this many times, ButtGoo.

 
At 26 September, 2013 00:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's not an opinion, it's a fact that only 100 civilians died under the impact zones, and thus the death statistics on Willie's 39 floors are no better than on any of the other 120-something floors under the impact zone.

Carol Brouillet had some difficulty adjusting to this fact, so she said some silly things about me. But I think she's better adjusted to reality by now.

 
At 26 September, 2013 00:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's all you have, bullshitter?

"Statistics," which you don't understand, REQUIRES that the "statistician" perform calculations in order to substantiate his/her line of reasoning. Yet, you can't provide the calculations to backup your argument. Why is that, liar?

You're worthless. You can't THINK, and, in the process, operate a scientific calculator to save your life. And you want to lecture us about the events of 11 September 2001? Give me a break.

So tell us, liar, what does this say about your alleged "scientific reputation"?

You can't do freshman in college-level calculations, yet, you want us to take you seriously?

Get out of here -- you Goddamned fraud.

Now stop BICKERING AND ANSWER THE GODDAMNED QUESTIONS:

You claim that you're "smarter, better-looking, and better-educated" than me. Yet, when challenged to demonstrate your alleged "intellectual superiority", you run away squealing and crying.

Now, either substantiate your assertion, or STFU -- you incompetent liar:

[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.

[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.

[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states

F = ma

derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.

[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.

[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.

[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

Now STONEWALL, asshole, and refuse to answer the questions.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 26 September, 2013 00:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

NO, that's not all I have. That's all I need, Perfesser.

It must be really nice to be Perfesser ButtGoo at ButtGoo Univerisity--not.

 
At 26 September, 2013 00:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squeal, squeal, squeal.

Anything but do the math, right fraud?

Your "meatball on a fork" bullshit tells us that the FORCE EXERTED by the upper portion of the towers couldn't possibly overwhelm the lower portion of the towers and result in TOTAL GLOBAL FAILURE OF THE SKYSCRAPERS; yet, when CHALLENGED TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ASSERTION, YOU RUN AWAY SQUEALING AND CRYING.

So what are you afraid of, liar?

Obviously, when challenged to substantiate your bullshit, you STONEWALL, CHANGE THE SUBJECT, and lie with abandon. ANYTHING BUT DO THE CALCULATIONS WHICH SUBSTANTIATE YOUR BOGUS "ARGUMENT." WHY IS THAT, LIAR?

You're a Goddamned fraud.

Now stop BICKERING AND ANSWER THE GODDAMNED QUESTIONS:

You claim that you're "smarter, better-looking, and better-educated" than me. Yet, when challenged to demonstrate your alleged "intellectual superiority", you run away squealing and crying.

Now, either substantiate your assertion, or STFU -- you incompetent liar:

[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.

[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.

[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states

F = ma

derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.

[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.

[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.

[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?

Do you have any idea what a fool you're making of yourself? Or are you totally devoid of self-awareness? Freak.

Now STONEWALL, liar.

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 26 September, 2013 01:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

STONEWALLING IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF DEBATE.

NOW, STONEWALL ONE MORE TIME, FREAK, AND YOU AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT THE DEBATE.

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 26 September, 2013 05:04, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, there's this new play on Broadway that's being called one of the funniest plays ever made. It's called "Punxsutawney Petgoat Good" and it's about this unemployed loser who accidentally discovers a giant government conspiracy to kill its own citizens and invade other countries. However, the guy is too big of a loser to actually take action to prevent the conspiracy. Instead, he posts spam all over the internet all day, and the conspiracy ends up being successful.

You should see the size of the mullet wig that the lead actor wears.

 
At 26 September, 2013 05:05, Blogger Ian said...

"It thinks its funny."

There, I saved you the need to reply to me in your usual humiliated, hysterical way.

 
At 26 September, 2013 05:48, Blogger James B. said...

Oh geez, that uniform is so bogus anyone who has spent 10 minutes in the military could tell.

 
At 26 September, 2013 08:41, Blogger David Banner said...

Carol Brouillet had some difficulty adjusting to this fact, so she said some silly things about me. But I think she's better adjusted to reality by now.

If this isn't proof that Brian is still in love with Carol then I don't know what to tell ya. LOL

 
At 26 September, 2013 09:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

James B wrote, "...Oh geez, that uniform is so bogus anyone who has spent 10 minutes in the military could tell."

Yeah, that "uniform" is almost as bogus as Brian Good's alleged "scientific reputation."

And that Hitler mustache meets ALL the creative facial hair criteria. LOL!

 
At 27 September, 2013 08:16, Blogger Hammer said...

Dear James, yesterday I sent you an email. I only would like to make sure your received it. Regards.

 
At 28 September, 2013 16:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I seem to remember a time when you said you would leave this blog if I weren't banned. You're not much of one for keeping promises, are you?

 
At 28 September, 2013 17:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What was that, liar? STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, LIAR, AND ANSWER THE GODDAMNED QUESTIONS:

You claim that you're "smarter, better-looking, and better-educated" than me. Yet, when challenged to demonstrate your alleged "intellectual superiority", you run away squealing and crying.

Now, either substantiate your assertion, or STFU -- you incompetent liar:

[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.

[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.

[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states

F = ma

derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.

[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.

[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.

[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?

Brian "meatball on a fork" Good -- an incompetent liar who can't do freshman in college math.

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 28 September, 2013 17:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm not an architect or engineer. -- Brian "meatball on a fork" Good

Right! You're a blowhard --and an insane, sex degenerate blowhard at that.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 29 September, 2013 08:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 September, 2013 08:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you just keep spamming the same dumb stuff. I can write e=mc^2 all day long and it won't prove that nukes blew up the WTC--and you clearly lack the mathematical insight to know that. Why should I do calcs that NIST didn't do? You'd just lie about my results if I did.

Why do you keep citing that webpage created by the liar and bigot Dr. Kevin Barrett as if it had some legitimacy? You're only showing that you lack common sense when you do.

 
At 29 September, 2013 09:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I didn't cite Barrett, I cited SLC where you were exposed as a liar, a con artist and a sex predator by Willie and Ian.

See? You can't even get the simplest facts straight without making gross errors. Should we expect less from a math and physics illiterate liar? Probably not.

NOW, STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, LIAR.

Your "meatball on a fork" bullshit tells us that the FORCE EXERTED by the upper portion of the towers couldn't possibly overwhelm the lower portion of the towers and result in TOTAL GLOBAL FAILURE OF THE SKYSCRAPERS; yet, when CHALLENGED TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ASSERTION, YOU RUN AWAY SQUEALING AND CRYING.

Now stop BICKERING AND ANSWER THE GODDAMNED QUESTIONS:

You claim that you're "smarter, better-looking, and better-educated" than me. Yet, when challenged to demonstrate your alleged "intellectual superiority", you run away squealing and crying.

Now, either substantiate your assertion, or STFU -- you incompetent liar:

[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.

[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.

[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states

F = ma

derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.

[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.

[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.

[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 29 September, 2013 10:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

You cited the bigot and liar Barrett in your "unmasked" link--which is appropriate, because you're a bigot and liar yourself, and you're either not smart enough to understand that the unsupported allegations of anonymous internet posters have no evidential validity, or you find it rhetorically convenient to pretend you're not smart enough.

Willie and Ian don't have the power to expose me. They're both blatant liars. Nothing they say can be believed. (Where is Willie by the way? He ran away squealing and crying after I showed that his hero story was a lie.)

Your own postings on ScrewLooseChange are no authority whatsoever. ScrewLooseChange uncritically hosts lies from you, MGF, WAQo, David Banner, and Ian every day.





 
At 29 September, 2013 11:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And what does Lyin' Brian Good offer to substantiate his assertions? Nothing whatsoever.

Should we expect less from a liar and a sex predator? Probably not.

And how was my exposé of your sex degeneracy and Internet vandalism described by a reader? I believe the word was "masterful." Too bad we can't say the same for you, liar. Of course, that's why you're widely despised. It's no secret who you are, liar. And I quote:

Well Brian, it's certainly interesting how you ran away, squealing and crying, from the last comment page after GB (rather masterfully, I must say) slammed your lies right into the ground! I guess you'll just acquire a case of selective amnesia about the whole event, and pretend you never ran away with your tail between your legs. You were proven to be a complete liar, you were utterly humiliated, and so you ran away...I guess you just don't handle humiliation well -- which is certainly a shame, since you experience it on a daily basis. -- Alec B, 17 August, 2013 22:07.

Furthermore, the subject is NOT NIST, the subject is YOUR "meatball on a fork" nonsense.

NOW, STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, LIAR.

Your "meatball on a fork" bullshit tells us that the FORCE EXERTED by the upper portion of the towers couldn't possibly overwhelm the lower portion of the towers and result in TOTAL GLOBAL FAILURE OF THE SKYSCRAPERS; yet, when CHALLENGED TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ASSERTION, YOU RUN AWAY SQUEALING AND CRYING.

Now stop BICKERING AND ANSWER THE GODDAMNED QUESTIONS:

You claim that you're "smarter, better-looking, and better-educated" than me. Yet, when challenged to demonstrate your alleged "intellectual superiority", you run away squealing and crying.

Now, either substantiate your assertion, or STFU -- you incompetent liar:

[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.

[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.

[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states

F = ma

derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.

[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.

[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.

[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?

BRIAN GOOD -- PERVERT, LIAR, INTERNET VANDAL AND DEGENERATE SEX STALKER EXPOSED

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 29 September, 2013 18:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I have many times shown that Barrett is a liar and a bigot, and for you to pretend that I haven't is dishonest.

Why won't you answer the question? I can write e=mc^2 all day long and it won't prove that nukes blew up the WTC--and you clearly lack the mathematical insight to know that. Why should I do calcs that NIST didn't do? You'd just lie about my results if I did.

 
At 30 September, 2013 05:01, Blogger Ian said...

Why should I do calcs that NIST didn't do? You'd just lie about my results if I did.

Poor Brian. He's too stupid to do basic math, which would explain why he failed out of San Jose State.

Anyway, Brian, I was away this weekend at a wedding of one of my fiancee's friends. I also got a haircut for it last week. I know none of this makes sense to you, since you have no friends, have never had a relationship (besides the stalker delusions about Carol Brouillet) and have a hideous homeless mullet. I just figure I'd remind you that normal people are living their lives while you continue to post spam about a dead conspiracy theory.

So, just to remind you again, 9/11 truth is dead, the widows will never have their questions answered, there will never be a new investigation, and you are a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons.

 
At 30 September, 2013 05:08, Blogger Ian said...

Oh, and because I didn't get a chance to humiliate Brian in the other thread....

Ian, any idiot can be successful.

You're an idiot, but you're not successful. You live with your parents because you have no job.

You may or may not be smart

I am smart.

but there's little gain from that when you demand so little of yourself. You are either too lazy, or too foolish, to recognize that you're only making a fool of yourself and degrading the reputation of this blog.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I humiliate him every day by not taking him seriously. You're a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons. Why should anyone take you seriously?

When did I tell you I flunked out of San Jose State? Was it back in the days when anyone could post under any screen name, even somebody else's screen name? How do you know I attended San Jose State?

Thanks for proving my point. You told us you failed out of San Jose State.

Clearly you have a great need to feel superior to someone--anyone!--that is not fulfilled in your everyday life. And so you must invent a character, one you imagine to be me, to whom you can feel superior.

I am superior to you. You're a pathetic liar who was banned from the truth movement for being a sex stalker. You have a hideous homeless mullet.

I enjoy humiliating you since you won't stop spamming this blog. One you concede defeat and stop posting here. I'll stop taunting you, OK?

 
At 30 September, 2013 05:12, Blogger Ian said...

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2012/04/insane.html

For example, Brian, on 11 April 2012, at 17:47, your post says, "I failed out of San Jose State".

A quick Google search of "snug.bug" and "failed out of San Jose State" gives 840,000 results.

You lose again, Brian.

 
At 30 September, 2013 10:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, any idiot can have a job. What makes you think that's success? plaighb 225

You think you're smart, but you sure don't show it.

If you think your haircut makes you superior, you must think you're superior to Abraham Lincoln.

 
At 30 September, 2013 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

There are only 64 hits for "failed out of San Jose State" and those containing the string "snug.bug" are a subset of those.

Thanks for demonstrating your confirmation bias.

 
At 30 September, 2013 10:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where's your buddy WizzieLiedRugAs? He ran away squealing and crying after I exposed his hero story for a lie, and he hasn't been back. Not even his sock puppets "sabba" and "CBSF" have been back.

Kind of looks like he decided to retire. Or maybe he got a job clerking in a convenience store?

 
At 30 September, 2013 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

I doubt he got a job clerking in a convenience store. Who would entrust a cash register to a blatant fraudster?

 
At 30 September, 2013 15:16, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, any idiot can have a job

You don't have a job.

What makes you think that's success?

The fact that it's a well-paid, intellectually challenging job of the sort that I went to college and business school for. I mean, I could have some of the jobs that you were too incompetent to hold down and I wouldn't consider myself a success.

You think you're smart, but you sure don't show it.

I am smart and I demonstrate it every day. You're too stupid to recognize my intelligence, but that's of no concern to anyone.

If you think your haircut makes you superior, you must think you're superior to Abraham Lincoln.

My haircut is irrelevant to this discussion.

 
At 30 September, 2013 15:17, Blogger Ian said...

There are only 64 hits for "failed out of San Jose State" and those containing the string "snug.bug" are a subset of those.

Thanks for demonstrating your confirmation bias.


Thanks for proving my point. You failed out of San Jose State.

Where's your buddy WizzieLiedRugAs? He ran away squealing and crying after I exposed his hero story for a lie, and he hasn't been back. Not even his sock puppets "sabba" and "CBSF" have been back.

Kind of looks like he decided to retire. Or maybe he got a job clerking in a convenience store?


Nobody cares about your homosexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 30 September, 2013 15:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

What makes you think I don't have a job, Ian? Do you follow me around all day?

What makes you think I was ever incompetent to hold down a job?

You make up stuff about me, and you make up stuff about 9/11, and there's no reason to believe anything you say.
You do not demonstrate any intelligence on this board. You demonstrate that you're too dumb to lie convincingly.




 
At 30 September, 2013 16:08, Blogger Ian said...

What makes you think I don't have a job, Ian? Do you follow me around all day?

You post spam here all day during business hours in California. Of course you don't have a job.

What makes you think I was ever incompetent to hold down a job?

The fact that you used to be a janitor, but now are unemployed and live with your parents.

You make up stuff about me, and you make up stuff about 9/11, and there's no reason to believe anything you say.
You do not demonstrate any intelligence on this board. You demonstrate that you're too dumb to lie convincingly.


My, such squealing!

 
At 30 September, 2013 16:16, Blogger Ian said...

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2012/11/is-truther-becoming-ultimate-insult.html

You can see above that Brian claimed that there are no widows, on 8 November 2012, at 7:18.

 
At 30 September, 2013 20:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, at Ian's level he's not trusted to take a break and go in and see what's shaking at SLC. Do they have cameras in the toiler stalls at your workplace, Ian, so they can be sure you're not stealing company time?

Lots of competent people used to be janitors. How do you know I'm unemployed? Do you follow me around all day to find this stuff out? Or do you just make up your facts like you do with respect to 9/11?

You show your lack of intelligence when you think it's clever to show that you can't read.

 
At 01 October, 2013 04:48, Blogger Ian said...

Oh, at Ian's level he's not trusted to take a break and go in and see what's shaking at SLC. Do they have cameras in the toiler stalls at your workplace, Ian, so they can be sure you're not stealing company time?

Wow, Brian's quite hysterical over my mocking his unemployment!

Also, Brian, what makes you think I'd want to be on SLC all day? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

It only takes a few minutes a day to read your hysterical spam and post a few comments taunting you for the fact that you've been banned from the truth movement for being a liar and lunatic.

 
At 01 October, 2013 04:50, Blogger Ian said...

Lots of competent people used to be janitors. How do you know I'm unemployed? Do you follow me around all day to find this stuff out? Or do you just make up your facts like you do with respect to 9/11?

An, nothing like the hysterical squealing of a mentally ill unemployed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons.

 
At 01 October, 2013 04:52, Blogger Ian said...

http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood

Poor Brian. He was banned from Scholars for 9/11 Truth for being a liar and a lunatic. Jim Fetzer didn't want the reputation of his group sullied by association with someone like Brian.

I also imagine Jim Fetzer took one look at Brian's hideous haircut and decided that he didn't need someone so pathetic in his group.

 
At 01 October, 2013 10:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it only takes me a few minutes a day to read your obsessively invented fantasies about someone you don't even know.

If I was banned from Dr. Fetzer's bunch they certainly never told me about it. I went there 'cause I wanted to see if Fetzer had gotten a bad rap, and I soon found that he hadn't. He was dogmatic, unreasonable, and poorly informed--kinda like you, Ian. So I quit going there.

 
At 01 October, 2013 10:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian thinks he's writing satire but he's not smart enough to see that he's only satirizing himself.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home